This is a summary of 3.4 Affective Disorder. Some of the literature might differ as this is based on literature used during covid and online tutorials. I added tables to summarise the main points which really helped me for the exam, I hope it helps you too!
- (1) What is depression?
- Symptoms, diagnosis, risk factors
- How does it develop?
- How can it be distinguished from ‘normal’ sadness?
- -> Focus on conclusions – basic evidence
- (2) Cognitive models Beck & Abramson
- How do the models differ?
- How do they explain depression?
- What types of treatments do they recommend?
- (3) What is electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)?
- What are pros & cons + side effects?
- -> No need for specific names of anti-depressants -> focus on class/type of these
Don’t focus on specific stuffs between subtypes of anti-depressants
Look at limitations of article in general
Focus on effectiveness of interventions (most important – basic findings)
- (4) How does depression affect brain activity?
- Is it similar to chronic pain?
- What are the neural mechanisms of depression? How is the imbalance of hormones
related to depression?
- KW = dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin
- -> Don’t focus on exact brain locations
Focus on functional neurons (≠ dif between white & grey) – general units
Keep intro points in mind for Kaiser (checklist)
- !! Subtypes + criteria of depression + prevalence (WHO doc)
Part 1:
Reading 1: World Health Organisation (2017) – Depression and common mental disorders
• DEFINITION:
o Depressive disorders = sadness, loss of interest/pleasure, feelings of guilt, low self-
worth, disturbed sleep/appetite, feelings of tiredness, poor concentration
Can be long-lasting OR recurrent
o 2 major sub-categories:
Major depressive disorder/depressive episodes -> mild to severe
Dysthymia -> chronic form of mild depression – less intense than depressive
episodes but similar
• 2 years + no stop for over 2 months
• GLOBAL & REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF PREVALENCE:
o Prevalence in world = 4.4% in 2015 (= 322 million people)
More common in females (5.1%) > males (3.6%)
Variation from 2.6% in Western Pacific to 5.9% in African regions
Peak in older adults (55-74 years) – 7.5% in F & 5.5% in M
• Lower in under 15 years
Increase of 18.4% between 2005 and 2015
1
,• GLOBAL & REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF HEALTH LOSS:
o Years Lived with Disability (YLD) + Years of Life Lost (YLL) + Disability-Adjusted Life
Years (DALYs) => Global Burden of Disease (GBD)
Depressive disorders = over 50 million YLD
• Often in low/middle-income countries
Ranked as largest contributor to non-fatal health loss
2
,Part 2:
Reading 2: Abramson (2002): Cognitive vulnerability-stress models of depression in self-regulatory
and psychological context
• INTRODUCTION:
o Neglect of depression until 1970s
o Beck = psychiatrist -> cognitive theory (≠ psychoanalytic)
Emphasis on negative automatic thoughts
o Seligman also made a new model/theory -> emphasis on maladaptive cognitions
o Cognitive approaches to depression
1. Info-processing – social cognition
2. Cog processed mediate emotional reactions (through thoughts)
3. Psychoanalytic seems untestable – less popular now
• ≠ The 2 new theories are testable
4. Questioning of purely behavioural stuff on psych phenomena
• TWO COGNITIVE THEORIES OF DEPRESSION:
• Overview:
o Vulnerability to depression to meaning/interpretation people give to their
experiences
Explains why cognitive therapy works so well
• Hopelessness Theory (Abramson, 1989):
o Cause = expectation of no desired outcomes and many aversive outcomes +
hopelessness (can’t do anything about it)
Hopelessness Depression (HD)
o Negative life event + 3 kinds of inferences = lead to HD
Causal attribution – inferred consequences – inferred characteristics of self
= + attribute stable & global causes / likely to lead to other negative
consequences / imply person is unworthy
E.g. fail test + assume it’s due to low IQ + will prevent her from getting into uni +
means she is worthless
o Individual differences cognitive vulnerability (negative cognitive styles) + stress
(negative life event)
Cognitive vulnerability-stress interaction
Social support can help
3
, • Material, emotional, informational support
• Can give adaptive inferential feedback
• Beck’s Theory (1983-1987):
o Cause = maladaptive self-schemata
Idea that one’s happiness/worth depends on being perfect OR other’s
approval
Not triggered when no negative event
o Only applies to some forms of depression (nonendgenous, unipolar)
o High sociotropy = value social relationships + intimacy + acceptance
With social rejection/interpersonal loss Neg cog triad = D
o ≠ High autonomy = value independence + freedom + achievement schemas -> alter info
When experience failure or threat to personal control into neg thoughts of
self
• Comparison of the two theories – similarities & differences:
o Similarities = cognition leads to & maintains D
Cognitive vulnerability hypothesis (neg cog patterns = high risk)
Mediator between neg event & depressive symptoms
Heterogeneity of depression – existence of subtype of depression
• H theory -> explicitly
• B theory -> implicitly
o Difference =
Cognitive processes Cognitive products
Operation of cog system – e.g. retrieval End result of the cog system – thoughts
experienced
B theory -> H theory + B theory
H theory -> depressive vs non-depressive cognition differ in content (≠ process)
B theory -> depressive vs non-depressive cognition differ in content + process
• D = schema-driven – influenced in making negative inferences -> distorted
• Non-D = data-driven
• EMPIRICAL EVALUATION OF THE THEORIES:
o 5 central predictions
1. Cog vulnerability will moderate effect of negative event on depression
2. Mediating link (hopelessness or neg cog triad) between life event & D
3. Causal chains leading to particular subtype of D (e.g. HD)
4
, 4. Match between cog vulnerability (e.g. achievement) & event = D
5. B theory -> depressive cog is distorted
• Research designs for testing these:
o 1) Remitted depression paradigm
= Examine cog patterns of depressed people + when they are cured
If H is correct, the cog pattern should be personal – so stay the same
Based on error assumption that cog vulnerability is immutable
o Behavioural high-risk design
= Study participants who don’t have the disorder but are hypothesized to be
at high or low risk of developing it
• Compare these two groups (prospective – future + retrospective)
• Prospective is more powerful -> cog vulnerability may be scar of prior
D episode in retrospective (≠ causal factor)
• (2) Etiological hypotheses featured in hopelessness theory:
o Strong link proven between cog vulnerability & D
But don’t know which cause which
o Studies with high-risk design -> found cog vulnerability leads to D
Need more research on hopelessness as a mediator
Higher risk with academic > interpersonal + low grade
• (3) Hopelessness depression subtype hypothesis:
o Proof cog vulnerability + stress = HD
o HD stands out statistically from other depressive symptoms
• (3) Etiological & nonendogenous subtype hypothesis – Beck’s theory:
o Cog vulnerability -> depression-specific neg thoughts -> stress
o Sociotropic -> some found D after neg interpersonal event (+ neg achievement)
Autonomous -> less strong support – D with neg achievement (≠ interper)
o Cog vulnerability-stress + mediating components => nonendogenous subtype
• The cognitive vulnerability to depression project:
o Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression (CVD) Project -> used retrospective +
prospective behavioural high-risk design
Tested cog vulnerability + B’s theories of D + other hypotheses in depressive
symptoms + clinically depressed
Followed uni students for 2.5 + 3 years
-> Support for cog vulnerability hyp (retro + pro)
• High Risk with prior D = more likely to redevelop it than LR
• HR = higher suicidality
=> Cog vulnerability risk of onset + recurrence of D
• Also support for specific subtype HD
o Cog vulnerability (= neg cog style – H theory + dysfunctional attitudes – B theory)
o Tritration model of cog vulnerability-stress
= Low levels of stress are enough to trigger depression in HR people
• Need high levels in non-vulnerable people
• Beck’s cognitive distortion hypothesis:
o B = thought non-D were less susceptible to illusion
o ≠ Depressive realism effect -> people with D are more accurate than non-D
Non-D = illusion of control
Accuracy ≠ normal cog functioning baseline
Suggestions to alter the theory -> emphasis on content dif > process
5
, • HOW WELL CAN THE COGNITIVE THEORIES EXPLAIN THE “BIG FACTS” OF DEPRESSION?
o There are undisputed facts about depression -> how well do the cog theories explain
them?
1. Depression is recurrent
• Some are more prone -> consistent with cog vulnerability hyp +
findings from CVD Project (neg cog styles = D)
• Underlying processes of 1st & recurrent D ≠ identical
o Some predictors are stronger for recurrence than 1st
2. Life events play a role in D development
• Cog vulnerability-stress component of cog theories
3. D can be lethal – increased risk of suicide
• Hopelessness = key factor
• CVD -> cog vulnerable people –> hopelessness –> suicidality
4. D is a common disorder
• So typical (≠ rare) factors cause D
o Neg life events are common
o D people don’t have rare cog processes -> they differ in cog
content from non-D
5. Rates of D increase from middle to late adolescence
• Rise in neg life event (= stressor of cog vulnerability-stress)
o Cog vulnerability developed/implemented in late childhood
o Contributes to hopelessness
6. Gender differences in D in adults
• 2x more W than M
• W also show higher scores in 2 features of hopelessness chain theory
o Neg life events (interpersonal) + neg cog styles
o => More vulnerable to cog vulnerability-stress
• M show greater dysfunctional attitudes (cog vul in B theory)
o May be more adaptive (e.g. perfectionism + high ability ->
balance out)
o Low self-efficacy + low ability = more maladaptive
7. D is heterogeneous + multiple causes
• D subtypes in cog theories
o Cog theories meet the explanatory requirement
6
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur eurpsychology. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour 10,49 €. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
