Cognitive Models of Depression: Critique and Directions for Future Research

Segal and Dobson's article describes the issues and recommendations that emerged from a recent Consensus Development Conference on Cognitive Models of Depression. The purpose of this conference was "to identify productive directions of growth for the field" of researchers interested in cognitive models of depression. The study of cognitive aspects of depression represents a significant portion of contemporary psychological theory and research focused on this disorder. Not only do the more established theories cited by Segal and Dobson (Beck, 1967; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Rehm, 1977) focus on cognitive aspects of depression, but several more recent integrative theories also emphasize the importance of cognitive functioning in this disorder (e.g., Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989; Gotlib, 1990; Lewinsohn, Hoberman, Teri, & Hautzinger, 1985; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987; Rehm & Naus, 1990). Paralleling this theoretical focus, the number of empirical studies examining cognitive aspects of depression has also increased dramatically over the past decade. In this context, therefore, a consensual statement that delineates profitable directions for researchers interested in cognitive aspects of depression to consider has the potential to be a valuable catalyst in the field, providing the impetus for further innovative and systematic investigations. Unfortunately, we do not think that the recommendations presented in Segal and Dobson's report will serve such a function. Certainly, they highlight several important issues in the study of cognitive aspects of depression and, although all these issues have been discussed in detail in various other articles, it may still be useful for investigators to see them presented in a single source. The major difficulty with this article, however, does not lie so much with the issues that are raised but with the recommendations for future research that are presented in the context of these issues. Our primary concern about these recommendations is that, although one can no more disagree with any of them than oppose motherhood or apple pie, they are nevertheless so terse (many consist of only one or two sentences) and so vague as to provide little tangible direction for researchers to follow. In this commentary, we consider some of the issues and recommendations that Segal and Dobson raise in their article, beginning with general comments and proceeding to more specific concerns regarding the implications of several of the recommendations. We conclude by highlighting what we believe are additional important directions for further research. Segal and Dobson raise several issues in the context of four aspects of the cognitive modeling of depression: cognitive models, cognitive assessment, cognitive vulnerability, and the integration of cognitive approaches with other models of depression. We agree that these are important areas of investigation. This report, however, conveys the impression that most of the problems described by Segal and Dobson have not been identified before and that the recommendations advanced in this article have not been proposed previously. This is clearly not the case. For example, Segal and Dobson state that current cognitive models of depression have "never" been compared to one another. In fact, a major purpose of Coyne and Gotlib's (1983) review article was an explicit comparison of Beck's and Seligman's models of depression. Furthermore, several other review articles and chapters that offer comparisons among cognitive theories of depression are also available (e.g., Power, 1987). Segal and Dobson also recommend that cognitive assessment methodologies need to be expanded beyond the current reliance on selfreport questionnaires and inventories. There is already a growing body of empirical studies that have used methodologies derived from experimental cognitive psychology to examine the cognitive functioning of depressed persons (e.g., Gotlib, McLachlan, & Katz, 1988; Williams & Nulty, 1986; see MacLeod & Mathews, 1991, for a detailed review of this literature). Surprisingly, however, there was no acknowledgment of this research in the consensus statement. Finally, Segal and Dobson recommend that cognitive explanations of depression should be broadened to consider the influence of such variables as early life experiences and current environmental circumstances. In fact, recent theoretical formulations and empirical studies of depression do consider such factors (e.g., Billings & Moos, 1985; Lewinsohn, Hoberman, & Rosenbaum, 1988; Lewinsohn et al., 1985; Oatley & Bolton, 1985), although they also are not acknowledged in this report. In general, therefore, our sense is that this document contains little that investigators who are active in the area of depression do not already know. The issues highlighted in this report are very complex, and theoreticians and researchers in the area of depression have been struggling with them for well over a decade. Thus, it may be unreasonable to expect a brief conference meeting to generate original and innovative recommendations for future research. Nevertheless, the few recommendations that were outlined in this report read more like platitudes than explicit directions for innovative approaches to the issues. Moreover, Segal and Dobson do not address the implications of many of the recommendations in their article. Given the importance of the questions and issues raised by the recommendations, we consider this a serious oversight. For example, Segal and Dobson suggest that researchers should be sensitive to the likelihood that depression is not a unitary phenomenon, but rather, is made up of various components (e.g., dysphoria, absence of positive affect, somatic and vegetative symptoms, guilt). They suggest further that specific cognitions may be especially related to one aspect or one component of the depression syndrome and less related to others. In this context, Segal and Dobson recommend that investigators work toward matching cognitive processes