Life Positions and Depression: The Role of Convictions

Life Position

A Life Position is a combination of convictions about the worth of the self, others, and the world, which is deeply ingrained in an individual (Berne, 1975). The convictions revolve around the self (“I”) and others (“U”) and form four types of convictions, which are “I’m OK” (“I+”), “I’m not OK” (“I-”), “You’re OK”(“U+”), and “You’re not OK” (“U-”). The OK-ness in these convictions reflect worth or value that the individual has attached, whereby “OK” refers to a high sense of value or worth, whereas “not OK” refers to a low sense of value or worth. These convictions about the worth of the self and others, and the existential positions are formed by the age of eight years old (James & Jongeward, 1978). The convictions formed may be unrealistic, irrational, and distorted, even though it appeared to be rational and logical at the early age when these decisions were made. These convictions that form Life Positions determine the way a person will live, the scripts they will continue to follow, the games they will play, and the pathologies they may develop (Berne, 1975; James & Jongeward, 1978).

Berne (1975) posits that there are four main Life Positions that a person can take based on the convictions of themselves (“I”) and other people (“U”), which are “I’m OK–You’re OK” (“I+ U+”), “I’m OK–You’re not OK” (“I+ U-”), “I’m not OK–You’re OK” (“I- U+”), and “I’m not OK–You’re not OK” (“I- U-”). Berne (1975) and James and Jongeward (1978) describe the existential positions as follows: The “I+ U+” position is considered the healthy or ideal position. People in this position have a realistic view of life and are able to cope and solve problems well. They also accept and understand the significance and worth of themselves and others. People in the “I + U-” position or the “get-rid-of” position tend to blame others for their problems, and so they seek to victimize and persecute others. People in this position are likely to develop paranoia, become narcissists, commit crimes, and develop homicidal tendencies. They view the life of others as being worth less than their own life. People in the “I-U+” position or the “depressive” position tends to be preoccupied with thoughts of “should-have”s and “if-only”s. They are dissatisfied with themselves and feel powerless, and hence, seek to isolate or withdraw themselves from the world, almost like an attempt to get rid of themselves. People in this position are likely to develop depression and in extreme cases, they may also become suicidal. They perceive their life as worth less than others’ lives. People in the “I-U-” position or the “futile” position loose interest in life and the world as a whole. They may develop schizoid behaviors and schizophrenia, and in extreme situations, can lead to suicidal or homicidal acts. They perceive any life, regardless of whether it is their own or others, as not being worth anything.

The construction of the convictions in Life Positions is one that is parallel to the formation of attachments styles. Attachments form mental representations of self-worth, worth of others, and the worth of relationships that one shares, based on how others respond to one’s needs at a young age (Howe, 2011; Shaw & Dallos, 2005). A four-group model for attachments was proposed, consisting of “secure,” “preoccupied,” “fearful,” and “dismissing” (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Shaw and Dallos (2005) described the attachment styles based on Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) model using individual’s positive or negative image of self (“I”), and positive or negative image of others (“U”), which allows ease of comparison to Life Positions and is described as follows; secure attachment involves positive image of self and others (“I + U+”), dismissive-avoidant attachment involves positive image of self and negative image of others (“I + U-”), preoccupied attachment involves negative image of self and positive image of others (“I-U+”), and fearful-avoidant attachment involves negative image of self and others (“I-U-”). When Boholst et al. (2005) tested the parallelism between this attachment model and Life Positions, all the Life Positions were parallel as mentioned above, except for the preoccupied attachment—“I-U+” pairing.

Traditionally, Life Positions have been viewed and conceptualized as more structured, symmetrical, box-like categories (Berne, 1975; James & Jongeward, 1978). In contrast, White (1994) and Jacobs (1997) conceptualized Life Positions as existing on a continuum and are somewhat asymmetrical and imbalanced instead of a fixed “box.” They suggested this because the values of “OK-ness” may be relative, different, and changing for each person. This suggestion means two individuals may have the same Life Position, but the degree of their “I” and “U” in terms of “OK-ness” may vary. The way individuals may react and behave could also differ despite sharing the same Life Position. Hence, conceptualizing Life Positions as only absolute categories may not fully capture these differences present.

Life Position and depression

Although the original theorizing of TA did not place too much of focus on psychopathologies, the “not OK” positions have been proposed to be related to psychopathology, with the “I’m not OK” (“I-”) conviction typically observed in clinical populations (Budiša et al., 2012). Specifically, depression has been conceptualized as the Life Position of “I-U+” (Berne, 1975; James & Jongeward, 1978; Widdowson, 2011). Widdowson (2011) explains that this is because people in this position view themselves as being inferior and “bad” as compared to others. Depression then develops as the individual’s way of coping repeatedly with these convictions, even though this coping method is actually maladaptive.

However, recent findings have shown that individuals with depressive disorders or significant negative feelings had either a Life Position of “I-U+” or “I-U-” (Budiša et al., 2012; Özpolat et al., 2013). The results of these studies appear to contradict the current TA theoretical assumptions that depression only falls in the “I-U+” position. Instead, it indicates the possibility of two depressive positions, with a negative conviction of the self having a seemingly constant influence on the relationship. Boholst (2003) similarly found that the Life Positions of “I-U+” and “I-U-” were both significantly correlated with depression, with the “I-U-” position having a larger correlation coefficient with depression than the “I-U+” position. The results from this study indicate that the “I-U-” position relates more strongly to depression, followed then only by the “I-U+” position. This finding suggests that the negative convictions of both self and others (“I-” and “U-”) together have a stronger relationship to depression than only negative convictions of the self without negative convictions of others (“I-” and “U+”).

Drawing upon the parallelism between Life Positions and attachment styles, literature has shown that certain attachment styles are also linked to depression. Anxious attachment style (“I-U+”) was found to predict depression and suicide attempts (Brenning et al., 2013; Kadir & Bifulco, 2013; Ozer et al., 2015). Avoidant or disorganized attachment style (“I-U-”) similarly either related to or predicted depression (Brenning et al., 2013; Goodman et al., 2012; Monti & Rudolph, 2014; Rawatlal et al., 2015). These findings corroborate the findings that directly tested Life Positions, whereby both the “I-U+” and “I-U-” positions relate to depression.

The findings from Life Position and attachment style, whereby both the “I-U+” and “I-U-” positions relate to depression, are in line with Beck’s (1983) proposal of two subtypes of depression, which are sociotropic depression and autonomous depression. Sociotropic depression is described as needing validation from others for the self to have worth (Persons et al., 2009). This description falls in line with “I-U+” position and appears consistent with the empirical evidence and Berne’s theory that “I-U+” is the depressive position. Autonomous depression, on the other hand, is explained as having negative perceptions of the self especially when the individual is unable to be independent or succeed, and at the same time, feeling unable to rely on others (Persons et al., 2009). This description appears to match the “I-U-” position, which was not theorized by Berne to be related to depression but has been empirically observed to relate to it.

Although the findings from previous studies that investigated the relations between Life Position and depression matched findings of attachment styles with depression and matched the theorizing of depression subtypes, those previous studies (Boholst, 2003; Budiša et al., 2012; Özpolat et al., 2013) tested Life Positions in the traditional context of concrete and absolute categories. White (1994) and Jacobs (1997), however, theorized that Life Positions may exist on a continuum due to the different values of OK-ness that each person possesses. This theorization raises the possibility that all four Life Positions may in fact relate to depression, merely at different levels instead of an absolute “depressive” position, which may explain the variation between Berne’s theory and the empirical evidence.

I, you, and depression

As mentioned previously, Life Positions consists of conviction about the self (“I”) and others (“U”), with negative convictions of the self theorized to be related to depression (James & Jongeward, 1978). Negative perceptions and beliefs of the self, in general, have been shown to be related to either current depression or the development of depression later on in life (Asarnow & Bates, 1988; Dubini et al., 1997; Evans et al., 2005; Rehm, 1977; Strawinska, 2010). Negative perceptions of others have also been noted to be higher in people with more depressive symptoms, but not at a significant level (Shapiro, 1988).

Gara et al. (1993) discovered that people with depression had significantly higher negative perceptions about both themselves and other people as compared to people without depression. They also found that negative perceptions about oneself were more likely to be accompanied by negative perceptions toward others instead of positive perceptions toward others. Miranda et al. (2013) found that cues that triggered memories or schemas about individuals’ negative and unreliable interactions with others were related to an increase in depression. These negative beliefs of others also further triggered negative beliefs about the self. Both these studies not only provide evidence for the role of both negative convictions of the self and others in depression but also how perceptions of the self and others may be interdependent.

Wiesner (2004) investigated the relationship between Life Position and affects and found that the role of “I” and “U” depended on what affect is involved. The research found that both “I” and “U” were significantly related to happiness and life satisfaction, “U” was significantly related to anger, and “I” was significantly related to sadness, loneliness, and social anxiety. As depression is closely related to affects such as sadness and loneliness, the finding suggests that depression may be predicted from negative self-convictions, while the convictions of others may not predict depression at a significant level.

The current study

Past research has shown that negative perceptions of the self and others relate to depression (Asarnow & Bates, 1988; Dubini et al., 1997; Evans et al., 2005; Gara et al., 1993; Miranda et al., 2013; Rehm, 1977; Strawinska, 2010). However, there is no empirical study that has investigated whether the “I” and “U” in the context of Life Positions may predispose an individual to become depressed or contribute to depression.

Although Berne (1975) theorized that “I-U+” is the depressive position, literature has shown that “I-U+” and “I-U-” positions are both related to depression (Budiša et al., 2012; Özpolat et al., 2013), with the “I-U-” position relating to depression more strongly than the “I-U+” position (Boholst, 2003). These past studies conceptualized Life Positions as absolute categories that relate to depression in an all-or-nothing manner, but the suggestion by White (1994) and Jacobs (1997) of Life Positions existing on a continuum indicates that each Life Position may relate to depression at different degrees instead of an absolute “depressive” position. This alternative conceptualization of the depressive’s Life Position may explain the observed disparity between Berne’s theorizing and the past findings. However, the differences in how much each Life Position relates to depression have not been investigated in detail.

To address these research gaps, the aim of the current research was to investigate the significance of the contribution of convictions of the self (“I”) and others (“U”) in depression. It also aimed to determine the differences in how each Life Position relates to depression. The current researchers hypothesized that (1) the negative convictions of the self (“I-”) will predict depression more than negative conviction of others (“U-”) and (2) the “I-U-” position will relate the most to depression, followed by the “I-U+” position, whereas the “I + U-” and “I + U+” positions would relate the least to depression.

Participants

A total 228 Malaysian participants from the general population participated in this research. The sample had a mean age of 26.07 (SD = 8.53, range = 18–59) and consisted of 78 males and 150 females. Power analysis conducted using G-Power indicated that with a medium effect size of .15, alpha of .05, and power of .80, a minimum of 68 participants are needed for statistical significance in a regression analysis, whereas with a medium effect size of .25, alpha of .05, and power of .80, a minimum of 180 participants are needed for statistical significance in an analysis of variance. Hence, the number of participants in this study was sufficient to obtain statistical significance for all the analyses. The sample was recruited via convenience sampling for face-to-face collection, and convenience and snowball sampling for online data collection.

Measures

The Life Position Scale (Boholst, 2002) is a 20-item instrument developed to measure the Life Position of an individual based on the theoretical underpinnings of TA. It consists of a five-point Likert-type scale, and the Global I and Global U scores are obtained by adding the instructed items together. A higher Global I score indicates higher positive conviction of the self, whereas a higher Global U score indicates higher positive conviction of others. Life Positions can be obtained by identifying whether the Global I and Global U fall in the high or low ranges respectfully. This scale has a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranging between 0.82 and 0.97 for the Global I factor, and between 0.61 and 0.94 for the Global U factor, for both original and translated versions of this scale (Boholst, 2002; Isgor et al., 2012).

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D Scale; Radloff, 1977) is a 20-item instrument developed to measure the epidemiology of depression symptomology in the general population. It consists of a four-point Likert-type scale, and the total depression score is obtained by adding all the items together. The higher the total score, the higher the presence of depression symptoms. This scale has Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .85 to .90, and test–retest reliability ranging between .45 and .70 (Campo-Arias et al., 2007; Cosco et al., 2017; Radloff, 1977).

Procedure

The samples targeted for this study were Malaysians between the ages of 18 and 59 years old. For face-to-face data collection, students and staff at private tertiary education institutes were randomly approached and asked for voluntary participation should they meet the requirements of the study. For online data collection, the study was shared on social media platforms to advertise for participation. Participants were given an informed consent form, demographics sheet, Life Position Scale, and CES-D Scale to complete, either on paper or online versions. The completion of all the questionnaires took approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Participants were thanked after the completion of the questionnaires.

Convictions of the self and others and depression

To test the relationships between convictions of the self (“I”) and others (“U”), and depression, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients of Global I, Global U, and depression scores. Higher Global I scores correlated with higher Global U scores (r(228) = .57, p < .001). More negative conviction of the self related to more negative conviction of others. Higher depression correlated with lower Global I score (r(228) = –.67, p < .001) and Global U score (r(228) = –.52, p < .001). Higher depression related to higher negative convictions of the self and others.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between Global I, Global U, and depression.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Global I	36.72	6.62	–	.567***	–.671***
2. Global U	36.59	5.07		–	–518***
3. Depression	18.24	9.99			–

***p ≤ .001.

To examine convictions of the self and others as predictors of depression, a multiple linear regression was conducted. Table 2 shows the coefficient values of the Global I and Global U as independent variables and depression as the dependent variable. The two predictors explained a total of 48% of the variance in depression (R² = .478, F(2,225) = 102.94, p < .001). Global I explained 21% of unique variance, whereas Global U explained 3% of unique variance in depression, and the remaining 24% of the variance overlapped for the two predictors. Although both Global I (β = –.556, p < .001) and Global U (β = –.203, p = .001) scores significantly predicted depression, Global I scores was a stronger predictor of depression than Global U scores. Higher negative convictions about the self and others predicted higher depression symptoms, but having a higher negative conviction about the self predicted the development of depression more than having a higher negative conviction about others.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Multiple linear regression analysis of Global I and Global U predicting Depression.

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI	Part
Global I	–.839	.088	–.556	–9.51	.000	[–1.01, –0.67]	–.458
Global U	–.399	.115	–.203	–3.46	.001	[–0.63, –0.17]	–.167

Life Position and depression

Convictions of the self (“I”) and others (“U”) exist as a continuum score and need to be categorized to be able to determine an individual’s Life Position. To categorize the convictions of the self and others, a median split (median Global I = 38; median Global U = 37) was first used to distinguish the convictions of participants as either “I+” (i.e., above the Global I median) or “I-” (i.e., below the Global I median), and either “U+” (i.e., above the Global U median) or “U-” (i.e., below the Global U median). Either the Global I or Global U scores of 27 participants fell on the median scores and were not able to be assigned a conviction group. Due to that, these participants were not able to be assigned a Life Position based on the norms of the current study, and hence, were excluded from the remaining analyses. The remaining 201 participants (M_age = 26.00, SD_age = 8.64, gender = 71 males and 130 females) were assigned a Life Position based on how they had been categorized for their “I” and “U.” For example, participants who were categorized as having “I+” and “U+” were assigned the “I + U+” position, and those that had “I+” and “U-” were assigned the “I + U-” position. This procedure was used to assign all the participants into the “I + U+,” “I + U-,” “I-U+,” or “I-U-” position.

A one-way between group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the differences in the relation of the Life Positions with depression. There was a statistically significant difference in depression scores for the four Life Position groups: F(3,197) = 40.94, p < .001. Thirty-eight percent of the variation in depression scores were explained by the difference in Life Positions. Figure 1 shows the mean depression scores of the Life Positions. The “I-U-” position had the highest mean depression score (M = 25.84, SD = 9.19), followed by the “I-U+” position (M = 20.32, SD = 9.48), the “I + U-” position (M = 14.87, SD = 7.03), and finally the “I + U+” position (M = 11.52, SD = 6.52). Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and Bonferroni post hoc analysis of depression scores for each Life Position. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni indicated that the mean score for the “I–U–” position was significantly different from the “I + U+” (M_diff = –14.32, p < .001), “I + U–” (M_diff = –10.97, p < .001), and “I–U+” (M_diff = –5.52, p = .014) positions. The “I–U+” position differed significantly from the “I + U+” (M_diff = –8.80, p < .001) position but not from the “I + U–” position (M_diff = –5.45, p = .108). The “I + U+” and “I + U–” positions did not differ significantly from each other (M_diff = –3.35, p = .517). The results indicate that the “I–U–” position related to depression the most, followed by the “I–U+” position, then the “I + U–” position, and finally the “I + U+” position.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Bar chart of mean depression scores for each Life Position.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and Bonferroni post hoc analysis of depression for each Life Position.

Life Position				I+U–				I–U+				I–U–
	N	M	SD	M Diff	SE	P	95% CI	M Diff	SE	P	95% CI	M Diff	SE	p	95% CI
I+U+	73	11.52	6.52	–3.35	1.94	.517	[–8.52, 1.83]	–8.80	1.81	.000	[–13.61, –3.99]	–14.32	1.33	.000	[–17.86, –10.79]
I+U–	23	14.87	7.03	–	–	–	–	–5.45	2.29	.108	[–11.54, 0.64]	–10.97	1.93	.000	[–16.12, –5.83]
I–U+	28	20.32	9.48	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–5.52	1.79	.014	[–10.30, –0.75]
I-U–	77	25.84	9.19	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

Convictions of the self and others

The results from the current study showed that “I–” and “U–” both significantly predict depression. Although this finding matches the results produced by Miranda et al. (2013) and Gara et al. (1993), it contradicts the theorizing of TA, whereby only the “I-” predicts depression. Although both convictions are significant, based on the beta weights obtained, the “I-” was found to predict the development of depression more than the “U-,” which supports Hypothesis 1. The significance of the relationship between negative convictions of oneself and depression has also been seen in previous studies (Asarnow & Bates, 1988; Dubini et al., 1997; Evans et al., 2005; Rehm, 1977; Strawinska, 2010). “U-” has significant value in its own right toward depression, but it holds less weight, indicating it possibly serves as an addition to the pivotal contribution of “I-”. The contribution of “U” was not investigated as much as “I” in previous literature but was similarly found to relate to depression (Gara et al., 1993; Miranda et al., 2013).

These results suggest that the “I-U-” position would be more relevant to depression, due to the significant contributions of both “I-” and “U-” in the development of depression, followed then only by the “I-U+” position. This means that although individuals with a negative conviction of the self are likely to have symptoms of depression, if they have an additional negative conviction about other people, they are likely to have higher levels of depression.

Life Position and depression

The results from the current study showed that the depression scores significantly varied for the different Life Positions. Post hoc analysis on the Life Positions and depression scores provided support for Hypothesis 2. The “I-U-” position was found to relate to depression significantly more than the other Life Positions. The “I-U+” position followed next, relating to depression more than the “I + U+” position. There was no significant difference between how much the “I-U+” and “I + U-” positions, and the “I + U-” and “I + U+” positions related to depression. The findings indicate that the hierarchy of Life Positions as related to depression, from most related to least related is as follows: “I-U-,” “I-U+,” “I + U-,” and “I + U+”.

Although the current research findings contradict Berne’s (1975) theorizing of the “I-U+” position as the only “depressive” position, it matches Beck’s theorizing of sociotropic (“I-U+”) and autonomous (“I-U-”) as possible subtypes of depression (Persons et al., 2009). The current findings also explain the results obtained by Boholst (2003), whereby the “I-U-” position had a stronger correlation to depression, followed by the “I-U+” position. Previous researches in Life Position (Budiša et al., 2012; Özpolat et al.,2013) and the parallel theory of attachment styles (Goodman et al., 2012; Kadir & Bifulco, 2013; Monti & Rudolph, 2014; Ozer et al., 2015; Rawatlal et al., 2015) similarly support the finding that the “I-U-” and “I-U+” positions are more strongly related to depression, as compared to the “I + U-” and “I + U+” positions. In addition, Berne (1975) originally theorized that the “I-U-” position is related to schizoid behaviors and schizophrenia. As the current findings show that depression is also associated with this position, it may be possible that the “I-U-” position reflects schizoaffective symptoms instead, which is a combination of schizophrenia and depression symptoms (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The findings of the underlying convictions provide insights that may explain the findings of the Life Positions. Individuals in the “I-U+” position were described as placing low worth toward the self and perceiving the self as never good enough (Berne, 1975; James & Jongeward, 1978). Individuals with the “I-U-” position were similarly described as having low self-worth, but they were additionally described as placing low worth toward the world around them, and perceiving that the world was an unreliable and disappointing place to live in (Berne, 1975; Howe, 2011; James & Jongeward, 1978). This bleak view of the world in addition to a disappointing view of the self possibly leads to higher levels of dissatisfaction, hopelessness, and helplessness, and eventually depression. Although the “I-U+” position has a negative view about the self, they still view the world as a reliable and safe place to live in, which could serve as a protective factor that the “I-U-” position lacks toward developing higher levels of depression.

Implications

The results from the current study provide a more concrete understanding into not only the relationship between Life Positions and depression but also into the convictions underlying this relationship. The current findings and insights suggest the need to restructure Berne’s original theorizing and assumptions of Life Position. An updated view of the significance of both negative convictions of the self and others on psychopathology such as depression, as well as the greater significance of the “I-U-” position in relation to depression, needs to be applied into the theoretical framework of TA. This research further adds evidence toward the importance and contribution of developmental and personality factors in predicting well-being and the development of psychopathology such as depression.

The results from the current study can be applied into clinical practice and therapy toward depression. By understanding a little more about the mechanisms underlying Life Positions and depression, more specific and accurate intervention methods can be designed accordingly. By working on modifying both negative convictions toward oneself and the world, changes will be longer lasting and a new Life Position can then be selected, which may in turn reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence of depression. Besides intervention applications, the results also provide diagnostic applications. By having a clearer view of the hierarchy of Life Positions in relation to depression, Life Positions can be used as a screening tool to determine how likely an individual may develop depression in the future.

Besides depression, the results of the current study also provide insight into improving overall well-being. Although individuals may not exhibit symptoms of psychological disorders, they may still have a certain amount of negative convictions. Working on modifying negative convictions, via therapy, to reach a more “secure” position consisting of positive convictions toward the self and the world can help to improve overall well-being and positive mental health. Improving well-being via convictions can also be worked on from childhood itself. Parents and caregivers can be educated regarding the significance of early experiences, the way convictions are formed, and the significance of these convictions for well-being. By doing this, parents can understand the importance of providing a safe and stable environment, as well as providing positive messages and responding well to their child’s needs. Doing this will increase the likelihood of the development of positive convictions of the self and others, and hence, the selection of a secure position. Selecting a secure position will in turn increase the probability of the development of positive mental health.

Limitations

The limitation of this study is the depression scores were not measured in terms of cut-offs for clinical levels of depression, instead it focused on depression levels as a continuum. Hence, the possible variations of these results in a clinically depressed population are unknown. Another limitation is other factors such as current mood and stress levels were not controlled in this study, and thus, the influence and contribution of these factors on the current results are not known. To reduce influences of cultural differences, the sample was restricted to only Malaysians. However, in doing so, another limitation arose, whereby the results obtained here may not be able to be generalized to communities of extremely different cultural backgrounds from the current sample. The related literature mentioned in this study, however, covered American (Wiesner, 2004), Turkish (Özpolat et al., 2013), and Serbian (Budiša et al., 2012) populations, indicating cross-cultural validity of the Life Position concept.

Future research and directions

Upon integrating the theories, literature, and findings of the current study, it was suggested that the “I-U-” position may be associated with schizoaffective symptoms. Future studies could test the validity of this suggestion by examining the relations between Life Positions and the development of schizoaffective symptoms, to better ascertain the possible symptoms and behaviors that are associated with these positions. Theoretically, the “I + U-” and “I-U-” positions have been suggested to be parallel with sociotropic depression and autonomous depression, respectively. Whether these two positions are indeed parallel with the two subtypes of depression can be empirically studied in future studies, to further expand the relations of Life Positions and understand the overlaps of Life Positions with other theoretical models.Future research can also expand on the current study by using qualitative methods to elicit the convictions about the the self and others, in addition to the self-report questionnaire. Using this methodology will enable extraction of specific themes of negative convictions and its association to depression, to further build a more concrete and detailed theoretical understanding of Life Positions. Another avenue for future research is investigating the relations between Life Positions and other psychopathologies (e.g., anxiety disorders and schizophrenia) as well as the contribution of the convictions of self and others in those respective psychopathologies. Doing this will enhance the theoretical understanding and improve therapeutic practices for other mental health issues. Future research could also examine potential moderating factors that could exacerbate the influence of negative convictions of the self and others on depression such as current mood, stress levels, and history of trauma.