Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression: Exploring Risk and Resilience

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2006.11.005Get rights and content

Scientific progress in risk research does not always translate to progress in resilience research. One explanation for the disconnect between risk and resilience research is inadequate theory construction in psychopathology. In this article, the authors argue that improved theory construction can help bridge the gap between risk and resilience. An example from the field of depression is used to illustrate how well constructed theories of risk can be used to develop and test preventions and interventions that bolster resilience. This article concludes with a discussion about the need for cross-cultural research on risk and resilience, which exemplifies a variety of environmental and genetic risk and resilience factors encountered by different populations and cultures.

Section snippets

Theory construction and evaluation

Depression is one of the most common and potentially lethal (through suicide) forms of psychopathology. By 2020, it is projected to be the second leading cause of disability worldwide [2]. Depression is also a substantial financial burden. The total economic cost of depression is estimated at more than $83 billion a year in the United States [3]. Understanding the factors involved in risk and resilience for depression is vital to our society.

Over the past 30 years, there has been an explosion

Using theory to inform studies of resilience

According to the cognitive theories of depression, negative interpretations of stressful life events create risk for future depression. To create or amplify resilience, an intervention should target one or both of the risk factors specified in the theory—stressful life events or cognitive vulnerability. It may not be feasible to eliminate stressful life events, but research suggests that it is possible to change an individual's cognitive vulnerability. The cognitive theories indicate three main

Relationship between risk and resilience

There are vast bodies of literature attesting to the importance of the concepts of risk and resilience for studies of psychopathology [42]. As the field now attests, for a point of etiology, risk and resilience factors can be broadly classified as environmental and genetic [43]. There is no clear common position that clarifies the relationships between these two constructs. In fact, the positions range from stating that these concepts are flip sides of the same coin to asserting an etiologic

Relevance of cultural and cross-cultural research

Much of the research on risk and resilience for psychopathology uses White American samples. Thus, it remains unclear whether the results of these studies apply to other cultures and populations. It is critical to test theories of risk and resilience in other cultures for a number of reasons.

First, as suggested in Fig. 2, risk and resilience factors might have environmental and genetic etiologies. With regard to genetic etiology, it is important to realize that because the development of

Summary

Most psychopathology research focuses on understanding the factors that contribute to the onset of mental illness. The general idea is that understanding the causes of psychopathology should lead to better prevention and treatment interventions. Yet, the process of bridging risk and resilience has been slow. In this article, we argue that the transition from risk to resilience could be facilitated by stronger conceptualization of the association between risk and resilience and theory building.

References (46)

  • L.Y. Abramson et al.

    Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression

    Psychol Rev

    (1989)
  • K.R. Popper

    The logic of scientific discovery

    (1959)
  • R.A. Depue et al.

    A behavioral paradigm for identifying persons at risk for bipolar depressive disorder: a conceptual framework and five validation studies

    J Abnorm Psychol

    (1981)
  • L.Y. Abramson et al.

    Cognitive vulnerability-stress models of depression in a self-regulatory and psychobiological context

  • L.B. Alloy et al.

    Prospective incidence of first onsets and recurrences of depression in individuals at high and low risk cognitive risk for depression

    J Abnorm Psychol

    (2006)
  • J. Garber et al.

    Predictors of depressive cognitions in young adolescents

    Cognit Ther Res

    (2001)
  • S.H. Goodman et al.

    Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressed mothers: a developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission

    Psychol Rev

    (1999)
  • D.A. Cole et al.

    Social origins of depressive cognitions: a longitudinal study of self-perceived competence in children

    Cognit Ther Res

    (2001)
  • C.S. Dweck et al.

    Sex differences in learned helplessness: II. The contingencies of evaluative feedback in the classroom and III. An experimental analysis

    Dev Psychol

    (1978)
  • F. Turk et al.

    Adolescents' and parents' explanatory styles and parents' causal explanations about their adolescents

    Cognit Ther Res

    (1992)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    Depression

  • J. Bowlby

    Developmental psychiatry comes of age

    Am J Psychiatry

    (1988)
  • L.B. Alloy et al.

    Developmental antecedents of cognitive vulnerability to depression: review of findings from the cognitive vulnerability to depression project

    Cognit Ther Res

    (2004)

    • Cited by (0)

    This work was supported by a grant from the American Psychological Foundation and a grant from the Foundation for Child Development. We express our gratitude to Ms. Robyn Rissman for editorial assistance.

    View full text
    Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.