PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF DEPRESSION
To read up on psychological explanations of depression, refer to pages 441–451 of
Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 How would the psychodynamic approach explain depression?
 How would the behavioural approach explain depression?
 How would the cognitive approach explain depression?
What you need to know
PSYCHODYNAMI BEHAVIOURAL
C EXPLANATION APPROACH


Freud’s
psychoanal
ytic theory
Evaluation


Research
evidence
for and
against
Evaluation
COGNITIVE
EXPLANATIONS


Research
evidence
for and
against
Evaluation
LIFE
EVENTS

The
impa
ct of
stres
sful
life
even
ts
SOCIOCULTURAL
FACTORS

The
influ
ence
of
socia
l and
cultu
ral
facto
rs
Psychodynamic Explanation
Freud argued that individuals whose needs weren’t met during the oral stage of
psychosexual development are vulnerable to developing depression in adulthood
because this causes low self-esteem and excessive dependence.
Individuals whose needs were met to excess during the oral stage are also
vulnerable because they might become too dependent on others. According to
Freud, we are victims of our feelings, as repression and displacement are defence
mechanisms in response to actual loss (death of a loved one) and symbolic loss (loss
of status) that enable us to cope with the emotional turmoil, but can result in
depression.
Individuals who are excessively dependent on other people are especially likely to
develop depression after such a loss. Anger at the loss is displaced onto the self,
which affects self-esteem and causes the individual to re-experience loss that
occurred in childhood. Freud believed the superego (or conscience) is dominant in
the depressed person and this explains the excessive guilt experienced by many
depressives. In contrast, the manic phase occurs when the individual’s ego, or
rational mind, asserts itself and he/she feels in control.
EVALUATION OF THE PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATION
 Has face validity. This approach does have face validity, as, even if a
psychodynamic approach is not favoured, it is widely accepted that
childhood experience can predispose the individual to mental illness in
adulthood. For example, Kendler et al. (1996, see A2 Level Psychology page
442) found adult female twins who had experienced parental loss through
separation in childhood had an above-average tendency to suffer from
depression in adult life.
 Early loss does not consistently predict depression. Fewer than 10% of
individuals who experience major losses go on to develop clinical depression.
Freud predicts that the individual’s anger is turned inwards on themselves
yet often it is turned outwards on those who are closest instead.
 The key weakness of Freud’s theory is that it lacks empirical support
and so is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Furthermore, any link between
loss in childhood and depression is just an association, not causation, and so
we cannot conclude cause and effect.
Behavioural Approach
According to this approach, depression is due to maladaptive learning. The
principles of operant conditioning have been applied to explain depression using
reinforcement and punishment. Depression could be due to a lack of positive
reinforcement or too much punishment.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH
 Lewinsohn (1974, see A2 Level Psychology page 443) suggests that
depression is due to a reduction in positive reinforcement as a consequence
of some form of loss, e.g. redundancy, relationship breakdown. Also, once
depressed, the individual may receive positive reinforcement such as
sympathy and attention.
 Learned helplessness occurs when an individual is placed in a no-win
(punishing) situation. When the individual associates a lack of control with a
situation, e.g. when punishment is seen as unavoidable, passive, helpless
behaviour is shown. Seligman (1975, see A2 Level Psychology page 444)
tested his theory by exposing dogs to electric shocks they could not avoid.
When they were then given the opportunity to avoid the shocks by jumping
over a barrier the dogs did not learn to do this, whereas dogs not exposed to
unavoidable shocks readily learned to avoid them. Seligman generalised this
to depression in humans. Stressful experiences may be experienced as
unavoidable and uncontrollable and so result in learned helplessness, which
leads to depression.
 Hiroto (1974, see A2 Level Psychology page 444) used three groups of human
participants: (1) exposed to a loud noise they couldn’t stop; (2) exposed to a
loud noise they could stop by pushing a button; and (3) didn’t hear a loud
noise. All participants were then placed in front of a rectangular box with a
handle on of it and exposed to loud noise. Unknown to the participants, the
noise could be switched off by moving the handle from one side to the other.
Only the group previously exposed to a loud noise they couldn’t stop showed
learned helplessness by failing to move the handle.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH
 Many people suffer loss without becoming depressed, which the theory on
reinforcement reduction cannot explain.
 Lewinsohn, Hoberman, and Rosenbaum (1988, see A2 Level Psychology page
444) have provided evidence that contradicts the role of reinforcement.
Lewinshohn et al. assessed over 500 non-depressed people for risk factors
associated with depression (e.g. reductions in reinforcement; negative
thinking; life stress), re-assessing them 8 months later to see if they had
developed depression. They found reductions in positive reinforcement did
not predict depression.
 Research into the role of cognitive factors in depression suggests that selfperception and faulty thinking may be more influential than learned
helplessness and may account for why this develops. Abramson, Seligman,
and Teasdale (1978, see A2 Level Psychology page 445) have expanded upon
Seligman’s theory of learned helplessness with the attribution model, which
does account for cognition.
EVALUATION OF THE BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH
 Reductionist. The behavioural explanations are greatly oversimplified as
they focus on only one factor, the environment. This focus on the external
means internal factors that may be more influential, such as biological and
cognitive, are ignored.
 Environmentally deterministic. The behavioural explanations are
deterministic as they suggest that behaviour is controlled by the
environment, which ignores the individual’s ability to control their own
behaviour.
 Ignores nature. The behavioural explanations overemphasise nurture and
ignore nature.
 Extrapolation. The generalisability of Seligman’s research is an issue as
there are qualitative differences between humans and animals.
 Face validity. The symptoms in depression do appear similar to the
responses shown by Seligman’s dogs and so the behavioural explanations do
have face validity. It seems likely that a perceived inability to control
stressful situations is common to learned helplessness and depression.
 Ecological validity. Seligman’s research lacks mundane realism so may not
be generalisable to real-life settings, and therefore may lack ecological
validity.
 Population validity. Learned helplessness as an explanation of the
development of depression may be more relevant to certain types of people,
e.g. those who lack social skills and so have limited emotional support.
 Cause or effect? Causation cannot be inferred as associations only have been
identified. The lack of reinforcement experienced in social interactions or the
tendency to feel helpless may be a consequence of being depressed rather
than a cause. Consequently, the behavioural explanations may be more
relevant to the maintenance than the onset of depression.
Cognitive Explanations
Cognitive dysfunction in attributional style (Abramson et al.’s attribution model)
and view of self, the world, and the future (Beck’s cognitive triad) have been linked
to the development of depression. Negative schemas develop during childhood as a
consequence of critical interpersonal experiences, and are activated when the
individual experiences similar situations in later life.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
 Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978, see A2 Level Psychology page 445)
developed Seligman’s work with the attribution model, which considers how
people respond to failure. Individuals susceptible to depression attribute
failure to internal (my own fault), stable (things will never change), and
global (applies the failure to a wide range of situations, e.g. “I’m rubbish at
everything”) causes. Such thinking is more negative and self-critical than
attributing experience to external, unstable, and specific causes. This
suggests that aversive stimuli on its own doesn’t cause learned helplessness
and depression, as this is dependent on how the individual thinks. Hence, the
attribution model supports the role of cognitive factors and improves on the
original learned helplessness theory.
 Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy (1989, see A2 Level Psychology page 445)
developed the original theory because they attached less importance to
specific attributions and more importance to the notion that depressed
individuals develop a general sense of hopelessness.
 Beck and Clark (1988, see A2 Level Psychology page 446) proposed the
“cognitive triad”, which is the individual’s thoughts about self, world, and
future. The more negative and therefore the more hopeless the cognition, the
greater the risk of depression. Beck also identified errors in logic or cognitive
biases, such as magnification, minimisation, and personalisation, where
weaknesses are exaggerated and strengths under-emphasised. Polarised
thinking is another bias, which is also known as black-and-white thinking.
For example, depressives often set themselves unattainable standards such
as, “I must be liked by everybody; if not I’m unlovable”.
 A prospective study by Lewinsohn, Joiner, and Rohde (2001, see A2 Level
Psychology page 446) measured negative or dysfunctional attitudes in
participants who did not have a major depressive disorder at the outset of
the study. They re-assessed the participants 1 year later and found those
high in dysfunctional attitudes were more likely to develop major depression
in response to negative life events. This supports faulty cognition as a cause
rather than an effect of depression.
 Evans et al. (2005, see A2 Level Psychology pages 446–447) also conducted a
prospective study and found that women with the highest scores for negative
self-beliefs during pregnancy were 60% more likely to become depressed
subsequently than those with the lowest scores.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
 Much of the evidence suggests that negative thoughts and attitudes are
caused by depression rather than the opposite direction of causality, and so
are an effect of the disorder.
EVALUATION OF COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
 Face validity. Depressive people do have the negative cognitions described
by Abramson et al. and Beck and so there is a high level of face validity.
 Success of cognitive treatments. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has
been found to be as effective as antidepressants, which supports the role of
cognitive factors in depression.
 Self-report criticisms. Research into cognitive factors relies on self-report,
e.g. the Beck Depression Inventory. The self-report method yields subjective
data as it is vulnerable to bias and distortion as a consequence of researcher
effects and participant reactivity and so may lack validity.
 Lack of reliability. The research is inconsistent and so we cannot be sure if
negative cognitions cause or are a consequence of depression.
 Cause or effect? The evidence that negative cognitions precede the disorder
is not convincing but nor has it been disproved. Therefore, conclusions are
limited. It may be that the relationship is curvilinear, i.e. negative thinking
predisposes depression and depression increases negative thinking.
 Descriptive not explanatory. The research describes the nature of
depressives’ thoughts rather than explains the development of depression
because it is not clear what causes the negative cognitions in the first place.
 Multi-dimensional approach. To account fully for depression it is necessary
to consider how cognition interacts with other approaches. For example,
faulty thinking could be due to an interaction of biological and social factors,
which are ignored by the cognitive approach.
Life events
Depression is often preceded by a high number of stressful life events. Interviews of
depressed women showed that 61% of the depressed women had experienced at
least one very stressful life event compared to only 19% of the non-depressed
women. Social support was identified as a variable that protected against
depression, as only 10% of women with a close friend became depressed compared
to 37% of those without an intimate friend (Brown & Harris, 1978, see A2 Level
Psychology page 447).
However, as you may remember from studying stress at AS, we are only as stressed
as we think ourselves to be. Thus, the critical mediating factor may be selfperception, which suggests that cognitive factors predispose the individual to
depression more than the life events themselves as it is the way we think about
them that is crucial. This partly accounts for why people can experience very similar
stressful situations and some become depressed whereas others don’t.
However, to account fully for such variation the interaction of biological
predisposing factors (innate physiological reactivity) and environmental factors
(stress) needs to be considered. Further limitations of the life events research
include the fact that the information is obtained retrospectively several months
afterwards, and so there might be problems remembering clearly what happened.
Cause and effect is an issue because it is unclear whether life events have caused
depression or depression caused the life events. For example, marital separation
might cause depression, but depression can play an important role in causing
marital separation.
Socio-cultural Factors
According to socio-cultural theorists (e.g. Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990, see A2 Level
Psychology page 448), the incidence of major depressive disorder is influenced
strongly by social and cultural factors. An example of a social factor is the presence
of an intimate friend because this has been found to reduce incidence of depression
(Brown & Harris, 1978, see A2 Level Psychology page 448).
Marital status is another important social factor. Blazer et al. (1994, see A2 Level
Psychology page 448) found that divorced individuals were more depressed than
individuals who were married or who had never been married. However, we cannot
be sure of the direction of effect, i.e. if divorce triggered depression or if depression
led to divorce.
Culture has an effect on the nature of the symptoms reported because individuals in
non-Western countries report mostly physical symptoms (e.g. fatigue, sleep
disturbances), whereas guilt and self-blame are more common symptoms in
Western countries.
A sub-cultural factor is evident in the fact that major depression is twice as common
in women in most countries of the world (Hammen, 1997, see A2 Level Psychology
page 448). Note you could consider this as an issue of bias in terms of diagnosis as it
may be women are just more likely than men to be diagnosed with depression.
However, the arguments against this are many as maybe women are more likely
than men to report their emotional problems. Or maybe women have more reasons
than men to be depressed, given that they are exposed to more stressors than men
are, e.g. gender bias in the workplace, the triple burden of work, home, and child
care, and the fact they are often poorer than men.
Kendler et al. (1993, see A2 Level Psychology page 449) found that women reported
significantly more negative life events than men in the past year. It is also possible
that women rely on a more emotion-focused approach and so spend a lot of time
thinking about their problems and focus excessively on their emotions. Whereas
men are more problem-focused, or if they do take an emotion-focused approach
they seek distraction from their problems (e.g. drinking alcohol) (Nolen-Hoeksema,
1991, see A2 Level Psychology page 449).
So what does this mean?
Now that we have covered psychological factors, it is no doubt clear there are
numerous possible contributing factors to depression, which of course makes it all
the more difficult to explain the disorder.
The diathesis–stress model offers a more comprehensive account because it
considers the interaction of nature and nurture. This better accounts for individual
differences, particularly in those who share genes in common, such as identical
twins where one develops depression and the other doesn’t. The diathesis–stress
model can explain this because, whilst both twins will have inherited the genetic
component, they may experience different interactions within the family or stressful
life events. Consequently, the predisposition may be triggered in one twin but not
the other.
Genetic predispositions may interact with the psychological explanations as faulty
cognitions and negative family interactions may be linked to genetics. Thus, a multidimensional approach is essential as multiple factors interact to explain the
disorder. It is also worth noting that an idiographic (individually-specific) rather
than a nomothetic (universal) approach is needed as the factors will interact in
different ways for different cases of depression.
Over to you
1. Outline and evaluate one or more psychological explanation(s) of depression. (25
marks)