Depression and generalizations about the future: Who overgeneralizes what?

Cognitive factors as mediators of the relationship between childhood trauma and depression symptoms: the mediating roles of cognitive overgeneralisation, rumination, and social problem-solving

Background: Childhood trauma has negative immediate and long-term impacts on depression. Questions remain, however, regarding the cognitive factors influencing this relationship. This study aimed to investigate the role of three cognitive factors - cognitive overgeneralisation, rumination and social problem-solving - as mediating factors in the relationship between childhood trauma and symptoms of depression.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Iran from March to July 2023. Participants (N = 227; Mean age 32.44 ± 8.95 years) with depression completed measures of childhood trauma, depression, self-overgeneralisation, cognitive errors, memory specificity, rumination and social problem-solving. The conceptual model was assessed using structural equation modelling.Results: Structural equation modelling indicated that childhood trauma had a positive direct effect on depression symptoms. Childhood trauma had a positive indirect effect on depression symptoms through both self-overgeneralisation and rumination and a negative indirect effect on depression through effective social problem-solving strategies.Conclusions: The findings suggest increased exposure to childhood trauma may be associated with elevated depression and self-overgeneralisation, rumination, and effective social problem-solving strategies may play an important role in this relationship. These findings hold potential implications for those working with patients with depression and a history of childhood trauma.

Generalization in Sports: The Impact of How Athletes Process Their Failures and Successes

The way athletes prospect future success or failure following a single success or failure is called “generalization”. This study examined the roles of an abstract “why” vs. a concrete “how” processing style on athletes’ generalization to future performances and to their self-concept (N = 668). We hypothesized that athletes in the “why” condition would show more negative/positive generalization. We also explored the impact of how individuals in the “why” condition attributed their success or failure performance. There was no main difference between processing styles but athletes with more functional attributions showed more positive generalization and athletes with more dysfunctional attributions showed more negative generalization. These results show that attributions could be driving the effects of an abstract “why” processing style on generalization. For athletes with an elevated depression score it might be particularly important to focus on generalizations following success and train these athletes to make functional attributions.

Abstract "why" Thoughts About Success Lead to Greater Positive Generalization in Sport Participants

Generalizing from a single failure or success to future performances and their self-concept could have an important impact on sport participants. This study examined the impact of the way sport participants think about success on positive generalization. Sport participants (N = 222) completed an online experimental study in which they were induced to think about meanings, causes and implications (i.e., abstract-“why”-thinking) or about more perceptual concrete aspects of their performance (i.e., concrete-“how”-thinking). We hypothesized that abstract-“why”-thinking would lead to greater positive generalization and that this effect would be moderated by self-esteem. Our results supported our hypothesis that abstract thinking increased positive generalization, and this effect was more clearly visible in sport participants with higher self-esteem. These results suggest that retrospective thinking about the “why” of a good performance may benefit athletes in the long run because they generalize the outcome to future performances and their self-concept which may boost their motivation and consequently their performance.

"Why is everyone always angry with me?!": When thinking 'why' leads to generalization

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The degree of (over)generalization (to the self, over situations) is an important characteristic of depression and anxiety disorders. Little is known about cognitive mechanisms underlying this (over)generalization. In this context, the present study examined the effect of an abstract processing style (compared to a more concrete processing style) on generalization of angry faces to the self. An abstract processing style refers to thoughts about the meaning, causes and consequences of events or situations ('Why'-thinking).

METHODS

To test the impact of an abstract processing experimentally, images of angry faces were paired with the name of the participant and happy faces were paired with another person's name while participants adopted either an abstract ('Why') or a concrete ('How') processing style. A surprise recognition task, where participants were asked to indicate whether they had seen the faces before, served as a test of generalization of angry faces to the self.

RESULTS

Results indicated that participants who adopted an abstract processing style showed more generalization of angry faces to the self and a trend towards more generalization of happy faces to the other person, relative to participants who adopted a concrete processing style.

LIMITATIONS

Our sample was a non-clinical student sample and thus conclusions about the generalizability to clinical samples should be done with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that abstract thought may underlie the generalization of bad/failure/angry feelings toward the self ('Everyone is always angry with me') and of good feelings towards other people ('Everyone is always nicer to other people') that is often seen in depression and social anxiety disorder.