Comparison of Helplessness and Hopelessness as Sources of Cognitive Vulnerability Among Black and White College Students

Abstract

The Cognitive Style Questionnaire (CSQ), an expansion of the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ), was created as an enhanced measure of cognitive vulnerability to depression using a hopelessness theory framework. However, the CSQ’s development emphasized facets of cognitive vulnerability consistent with a Eurocentric worldview. Consequently, the CSQ may inadvertently degrade rather than enhance assessment of cognitive vulnerability to depression for Black participants whose vulnerability may be shaped by a different sociopolitical context. Participants were 259 White and 180 Black college students. As predicted, cognitive vulnerability to depression assessed via the reformulated learned helplessness (ASQ) but not hopelessness theory (CSQ) was associated with increased symptoms of depression for Black participants. The opposite pattern of results was found for White participants for whom hopelessness (CSQ), but not helplessness (ASQ) was associated with higher levels of depression symptoms. The current findings support the need for more extensive examination of social context and race in assessing cognitive vulnerability to depression.

Keywords

depression cognitive vulnerability stressful life events Black adults

Major depression is a public health concern and is a leading cause of disease-related disability that affects a wide range of individuals across all racial and ethnic groups in the United States (Kessler, 2003). The development and course of major depression is admittedly complex with a number of different contributing factors. Prominent among proven correlates of depression is the occurrence of stressful life events (Hankin & Abela, 2005). However, the impact of life stress on depression has been shown to vary as a function of individual differences in cognitive vulnerability (Hammack, 2003), suggesting that cognitive vulnerability is potentially an important target for remediation and may guide development of strategies to promote resilience to depressive episodes. However, it seems probable that prominent cultural and social context could give rise to greater prominence of some facets of cognitive vulnerability relative to others. This suggests that when examining cognitive vulnerability, it may be important to consider the potential influence of cultural and historical context that may shape their development and their impact on depressive symptoms (see Ayalon & Young, 2003; Mizell, 1999).

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether two groups known to differ in their sociocultural contexts would also differ in the extent to which cognitive vulnerability to depression assessed via the reformulated learned helplessness theory and the hopelessness theory would amplify the impact of life stressors. We focused on a contrast between the effect of cognitive vulnerability among Black participants and White participants because the latter represents the group for which measures of cognitive vulnerability to depression were developed and normed, whereas the former represents a group that has historically been separated from majority culture, giving rise to different social context, cultural traditions, and beliefs that could differentially shape cognitive vulnerability and resilience. As a consequence, we predicted that changes in the assessment of cognitive vulnerability to depression derived through a focus on White samples might be successful in enhancing the assessment of vulnerability for this group (i.e., the target group), but simultaneously worsen assessment with groups who have a different worldview orientation, such as Black participants. Below, we develop these ideas. We first briefly discuss the sociocultural context that may shape cognitive vulnerability in Black participants, and use the literature on locus of control to illustrate the plausibility of differences in cognitive variables arising from historical and cultural context. We next briefly review the different theories that underlie current measures of cognitive vulnerability to depression, highlighting differences in earlier (Attributional Style Questionnaire [ASQ]) versus later (Cognitive Style Questionnaire [CSQ]) approaches to the assessment of cognitive vulnerability. Finally, we describe the current study and specific hypotheses to be tested.

Sociocultural Context of Cognitive Vulnerability

When addressing internal psychological states across subgroups, cultural context matters. Mizell (1999) criticized the literature on the development and course of psychopathology, arguing that the existing literature on Black participants does not take Black participants’ unique context into consideration when assessing psychopathology. Black participants’ daily experiences often differ from those of White participants due to disproportionate experiences of inequality, discrimination, and prejudice (see Williams & Collins, 1995). However, these sociopolitical experiences are not reflected in greater report of cognitive vulnerability. Black participants report fewer negative cognitive biases that lead to psychological distress than do White participants (Stein et al., 2010; Thompson, Kaslow, Weiss, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998; Waschbusch, Sellers, LeBlanc, & Kelley, 2003). Furthermore, Black participants generally report fewer of the cognitive and pessimistic symptoms characteristic of depression than do White participants (e.g., Greco, Brickman, & Routh, 1996; Weissman, Bruce, Leaf, Florio, & Holzer, 1991). These differences suggest the importance of careful examination of possible qualitative differences in cognitive vulnerability to depression for Black participants and White participants.

The experiences of Black participants may lead to somewhat different vulnerabilities. For example, the cumulative effect of economic and social disadvantage (e.g., poverty, segregation, discrimination) may increase the tendency among Black participants to endorse the belief that external factors are largely responsible for outcomes in their lives (West, 1993; Wolinsky et al., 2012; Zahodne et al., 2015). In addition, given the historical and pervasive experience of oppression and discrimination among Black populations, external attributions about the occurrence of negative events may generate feelings of powerlessness (Feagin & Sikes, 1994), and ultimately increased levels of depression. Accordingly, the literature on locus of control may be instructive regarding potential differences in cognitive vulnerability to depression for Black participants and White participants.

Locus of control theory specifies that higher internal locus of control, reflecting one’s belief in one’s ability to control and acknowledge responsibility toward negative life circumstances is a vulnerability for depressive symptoms. This is in contrast to external locus of control, which reflects the belief that external forces such as social and political institutions as well as those in power make determinations about the outcomes of events, and is associated with less vulnerability for the development of depressive symptoms (Garber & Flynn, 2001; Rotter, 1966, 1990; Schleider, Vélez, Krause, & Gillham, 2014). As is the case for other measures of cognitive vulnerability, the bulk of the findings indicating that higher levels of internal locus of control are associated with depression come from examination of White samples. More recently, studies examining locus of control in Black populations have noted that Black participants’ cognitive vulnerability measured through internal locus of control is lower than that of White participants (Ayalon & Young, 2003; Rossier, Dahourou, & McCrae, 2005; Van Haaften & Van de Vijver, 1999). More important, an external rather than internal locus of control has been found to be more predictive of psychological disturbance, including depression, for Black participants (Goodman, Cooley, Sewell, & Leavitt, 1994; Spann, Molock, Barksdale, Matlin, & Puri, 2006). Accordingly, it appears that measures of cognitive vulnerability developed for White samples may function differently for Black samples. Although locus of control was not directly assessed in the current study, the pattern observed for locus of control from previous research is notable. It suggests that cognitive vulnerability to depression in Black participants and White participants may look somewhat different. The difference may be due to different historical and current experiences of sociopolitical injustice that have shaped the groups’ worldviews. Worldview differences can lead to different patterns of response to adversity and also differential vulnerability to depression (Walker, Alabi, Roberts, & Obasi, 2010). These patterns of findings further emphasize the need to accurately conceptualize and measure cognitive vulnerability to depression in groups with differing worldviews.

Why Should There Be Differential Response to the CSQ and ASQ for Black Participants and White Participants?

There are several reasons to expect different patterns of cognitive vulnerability for Black participants and White participants, and one would anticipate that these differences would be reflected in different patterns of interaction between stressful life events and response patterns for the ASQ and CSQ (key self-report instruments used to measure cognitive vulnerability). First, the CSQ emphasizes future orientation and specifically adds a dimension assessing future consequences. The emphasis on future consequences may decrease its capacity to identify cognitive vulnerability among Black adults to the extent that Black participants more often espouse a worldview that highlights the present rather than adopting a distant future time orientation (Walker et al., 2010). It seems likely that this difference arises from a social context which emphasizes a more immediate focus of attention. Extrapolating from Black versus White differences in locus of control (e.g., Goodman et al., 1994; Spann, et al., 2006), to the extent that one believes external forces are responsible for important outcomes, this belief would deter future planning and promote a “here and now” attentional focus. If so, measures of cognitive vulnerability to depression that highlight future orientation may enhance assessment of cognitive vulnerability for White participants but decrease it for Black participants. Likewise, if external locus of control is more predictive of cognitive vulnerability for Black participants, the greater focus on future could limit the ability of the CSQ to accurately identify cognitive vulnerability among Black participants.

Similarly, there is an increased focus of assessment of self-worth with the CSQ (Haeffel et al., 2003; Haeffel et al., 2008; Hankin & Abramson, 2002). This is another area in which there may be substantial differences for Black participants and White participants, leading the addition in the CSQ to enhance assessment of vulnerability for White participants but obscure detection of cognitive vulnerability to depression among Black participants. Given their identification with a different cultural background, history, and heritage (e.g., Schiele, 2005), many Black participants identify with an ongoing group struggle that promotes a greater communal orientation. Such factors may be particularly salient in the context of stressful life events, many of which may highlight elements of this ongoing struggle. Accordingly, measures of cognitive vulnerability that emphasize esteem at the individual level, as those the CSQ, may play less of a role for Black participants than would measures oriented to group-level evaluations of worth.

Overall, to the extent that individual self-worth and expectations about the future are more central for escalation of depressive symptoms in response to adversity among White participants than are cognitions related to helplessness (ASQ), one would expect the interaction of hopelessness (CSQ) cognition and life stress to account for more variance in depressive symptoms than does the interaction of helplessness (ASQ) cognition and life stress. Conversely, to the extent that the newer facets of vulnerability highlighted by the CSQ are less central for escalation and maintenance of depressive symptoms among Black participants than are cognitions related to helplessness (ASQ), the CSQ would be expected to prove less useful in capturing vulnerability to depressive symptoms than would the ASQ. Therefore, research is needed to examine the effect of measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression in different ways, and the potentially different effects for White participants and Black participants.

Assessment of Cognitive Vulnerability

The original model of cognitive vulnerability to depression, the reformulated learned helplessness theory (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), operationalized cognitive vulnerability through the ASQ. The ASQ was developed to assess respondents’ causal attributions on dimensions of internality, stability, and globality (Abramson et al., 1978). Development of this measure was based on an attributional conceptualization of learned helplessness theory, a learning-based model with likely broad applicability across racial and ethnic groups. The hopelessness theory of depression (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989) operationalized cognitive vulnerability through the CSQ. This more recent formulation represents an effect to refine learned helplessness models to better account for additional cognitive components that appear to be prominent in many facets of current European American/White culture. The hopelessness theory of depression was created to expand upon the reformulated learned helplessness theory of depression by addressing issues of negative future consequences and negative self-worth implications following the occurrence of a stressful life event (Haeffel et al., 2003; Haeffel et al., 2008; Hankin & Abramson, 2002). The reformulated learned helplessness theory (Abramson et al., 1978) and the hopelessness theory of depression (Abramson et al., 1989) both highlight the role of cognitive bias in the pathology of depression. According to both theories, life stress is most strongly associated with depressive symptoms in the face of cognitive vulnerability (Abramson et al., 1978; Abramson et al., 1989). That is, it is the cognitive vulnerability by stress interaction rather than cognitive vulnerability alone or stress alone that is hypothesized to give rise to depression symptomatology. Both theories of vulnerability have had strong empirical support (e.g., Alloy, Abramson, Walshaw, & Neeren, 2006; Ball, McGuffin, & Farmer, 2008; Gibb, Beevers, Andover, & Holleran, 2006; Haeffel, 2010; Haeffel et al., 2007; Hankin & Abela, 2005; Joiner, Metalsky, & Wonderlich, 1995; Sweeney, Anderson, & Bailey, 1986), although in both cases, the support is derived primarily from examination of variation of cognitive vulnerability in White samples.

Present Study

The aim of the current study was to identify potential group differences in the nature of cognitive vulnerability to depression, and examine the possibility that the CSQ provides enhanced assessment of cognitive vulnerability among White participants even as it provides degraded assessment of cognitive vulnerability among Black participants. Our focus is on each measure’s ability to produce amplified impact of life stress on depressive symptoms. The specific hypotheses are as follows: (1) Black participants will report less overall cognitive vulnerability to depression than White participants. (2) Among White participants, the interaction between life stress and cognitive vulnerability to depression, as measured by the CSQ is expected to be a better predictor of depression than is the interaction between life stress and cognitive vulnerability to depression, as measured by the ASQ. (3) Conversely, among Black participants, the interaction between life stress and cognitive vulnerability to depression, as measured by the ASQ is expected to be a better predictor of depression than is the interaction between life stress and cognitive vulnerability to depression, as measured by the CSQ.

Method

Participants

A total of 518 undergraduate students were recruited from two southeastern U.S. colleges in a moderately sized southern U.S. city. However, for the purposes of the current study, only the 439 participants who identified as Black or White were included in the current analyses. Thus, the study sample consisted of 259 (59%) White and 180 (41%) Black college students.

Participants for the current study were between the ages of 18 to 55 years for Black participants (M = 19.76, SD = 4.22) and ages 18 to 60 years for White participants (M = 19.39, SD = 3.01).¹ The White and Black subgroups were represented by 76% and 71% female college students, respectively. Of note, previous studies have demonstrated that when examining basic psychological processes such as cognition, college student samples tend to generalize to community and clinical samples (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999; Haeffel, 2010).

Materials

Beck Depression Inventory–II (BDI-II; Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961)

The BDI-II is a 21-item self-report instrument designed to assess participants’ level of depressive symptoms in the past 2 weeks. Respondents’ scores are rated on a 0 to 3 scale with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms. Total scores range from 0 to 63. Past research using the BDI-II have reported high internal consistency with alphas ranging from .89 to .93 (M = .91; Abela, Webb, Wagner, Ho, & Adams, 2006). Past research has also found the BDI-II to be a reliable and valid measure for assessing symptoms of depression in Black participants (Joe, Woolley, Brown, Ghahramanlou-Holloway, & Beck, 2008). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .90 for the Black subgroup and .91 for the White subgroup.

The Life Experiences Survey (LES; Sarason, Johnson, & Siegel, 1978)

This widely used measure assesses stressful life events and their impact. In the current study, a 30-item shortened measure was used to assess stressful life events that occurred in the past year (Hunter et al., 2003). The respondents evaluated each event on a scale from −2 (extremely negative) to +2 (extremely positive). If an event did not occur, the item was coded as 0. An absolute value score of stressful life events was derived by summing the weighted score of stressful life events. Adequate test-retest reliability has been reported (range of r = .63-.82). The LES has been found to have good concurrent validity with measures of depressive symptoms (Sarason et al., 1978). Adequate internal consistency has been found for a sample of Black participants with an alpha of .80 (Zayas, Jankowski, & McKee, 2005). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .81 for both Black and White subgroups.

Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982)

The ASQ is a self-report measure of cognitive attributional style that is based on the reformulated learned helplessness theory. All items are assessed on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Participants are instructed to generate the cause of six fictitious positive and six fictitious negative events along dimensions of internality-externality, stability-instability, and globality-specificity. Internality refers to the degree to which the cause of an event is attributed to the person or to the external environment. Stability refers to the degree to which the cause of an event will persist over time. Globality refers to the degree to which the cause of an event will influence all areas of a person’s life. Scores are averaged across each of the life events to yield one score that ranges from 1 to 7. Higher scores represent more internal, stable, and global attributions, and denote greater cognitive vulnerability to depressive symptoms. The ASQ has been shown to have adequate internal consistency with an alpha of .75 (Elwood, Mott, Williams, Lohr, & Schroeder, 2009; Paukert, Pettit, Perez, & Walker, 2006). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .80 for the Black subsample and .83 for the White subsample.

Cognitive Style Questionnaire (Abramson & Metalsky, 1986)

The CSQ was adapted from the ASQ and expanded to include an assessment of implications for self-worth and future consequences. The CSQ is purported to measure cognitive vulnerability based on the hopelessness theory of depression. The CSQ consists of 12 hypothetical negative events and 12 hypothetical positive events assessing dimensions of causal attributions (e.g., the dimensions of stability and globality also found in the ASQ), consequences, and self-worth implications. Total scale scores are averaged across the hypothetical situations and range from 1 to 7. Both the CSQ and ASQ were developed for use with college populations and assess domains related to achievement (e.g., college coursework) and interpersonal relationships (e.g., romantic relationships). Internal consistency has been found to be .96 (Oliver, Murphy, Ferland, & Ross, 2007). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .94 for the Black subgroup and .96 for the White subgroup.

Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead, 1975)

Participants’ socioeconomic status (SES) was assessed via the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index. The four factors used in this index are as follows: participants’ parents’ level of education, occupation, sex, and marital status. The SES score of a nuclear family was estimated by summing the weighted scores of each participant’s self-reported mother’s and father’s education, occupation, sex, and marital status. Scores on the Hollingshead scale range from 8 to 66 with lower and higher scores indicating lower and higher SES, respectively.

Demographics

Participants were asked comprehensive demographic questions regarding age, marital status, education, race/ethnicity, and employment status. With respect to race, participants were asked to select their race group membership from a list of five options. However, for the purposes of the study, only Black and White participants were examined.

Procedure

The present study was granted full institutional review board approval and conducted in small groups of 5 to 15 participants. Participants were recruited from two southeastern U.S. colleges. They were predominantly identified via psychology research pools and campus flyers. Black students were recruited from nonpsychology classrooms and social gatherings that included above average enrollment/participation to maximize study participation among Black students. Participants recruited through research participation pools received research credit for their participation. Participants not recruited from the research pool were permitted to either enter into a raffle where they were eligible to win $100 or given extra credit determined by their course instructor. Potential participants who were less than 18 years of age were not included in the study. Eligible participants were directed to come to the research lab where they were informed that participation in the study was completely voluntary and that they could choose to discontinue at any time without penalty. Once signed consent was obtained, participants were given a demographic form and battery of questionnaires. All participants were verbally debriefed and provided with a written debriefing form. No participants demonstrated imminent risk of danger.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all measures are presented in Table 1. Several findings warrant further attention. The mean level of depressive symptoms fell in the minimal to moderate range for both Black participants (M = 12.70, SD = 9.15) and White participants (M = 11.39, SD = 8.45) and was consistent with past research (Abela & Sarin, 2002; Haeffel, 2010). Scores on depression were found to be significantly associated with scores for all measures, though not significantly associated with SES for Black participants. For White participants, depressive symptoms were significantly associated with scores on the CSQ, but not correlated with other measures. The ASQ and CSQ scores were significantly correlated; this was true for both Black participants and White participants.

Table 1.

Measurement Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Black and White Subsamples.

	1	2	3	4	5	Black participants, M (SD)	White participants, M (SD)
1. BDI	—	.10	.01	.06	.32**	12.70 (9.15)	11.39 (8.45)
2. LES	.21**	—	−.02	−.09	−.01	7.54 (6.10)	7.41 (5.72)
3. SES	−.13	.01	—	−.01	−.01	42.07 (13.24)	40.03 (14.06)
4. ASQ	.30**	−.08	−.06	—	.47**	4.00 (0.65)	4.15 (0.67)
5. CSQ	.34**	−.08	−.06	.50**	—	3.91 (0.80)	4.25 (0.76)

Note: BDI = Beck Depression Inventory–II; LES = Life Experiences Survey; SES = Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status; ASQ = Attributional Style Questionnaire; CSQ = Cognitive Style Questionnaire. Intercorrelations for all measures for White participants are above the diagonal. Intercorrelations for all measures for Black participants are below the diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Independent-samples t tests were conducted to test differences in SES, self-reported depressive symptoms, and cognitive vulnerability (via the ASQ and CSQ) for Black participants and White participants. No significant difference in SES was found between Black participants (M = 42.07, SD = 13. 24) and White participants (M = 40.03, SD = 14.06, t = 1.49, p = .14). Similarly, there were no significant differences between Black participants (M = 7.54, SD = 6.10) and White participants (M = 7.41, SD = 5.72) on stressful life events (t = 0.22, p = .83). There were significant race group differences in ASQ (Black participants: M = 4.00, SD = 0.65; White participants: M = 4.15, SD = 0.67) and CSQ (Black participants: M = 3.91, SD = 0.80; White participants: M = 4.25, SD = 0.76) scores; t = −2.41, p = .02 and t = −4.48, p < .001, respectively, such that Black participants demonstrated lower cognitive vulnerability to depression symptoms on both measures. As expected the two measures of cognitive vulnerability were significantly correlated. Thus, the hypothesis that Black participants would demonstrate less self-reported cognitive vulnerability to depression was supported. However, level of depressive symptoms (t = 1.53, p = .13) did not differ significantly by race group.

Stressful Life Events as a Predictor for Depression Symptoms Given ASQ- Versus CSQ-Measured Cognitive Vulnerability

Given significant mean group differences in the primary predictors, stratified hierarchical multiple regressions (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013) were conducted by race group. PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) was used to examine the interaction of stressful life events with the ASQ and the CSQ measures of cognitive vulnerability to predict scores on depression for both Black and White samples. In the first step of the regression equation, SES and gender (the covariates) were entered. In the second step of the equation, scores for the LES (life stress) and cognitive vulnerability (either ASQ or CSQ) were entered to identify main effects. In the third step, the interaction term for stressful life events and cognitive vulnerability were entered (e.g., CSQ × LES and ASQ × LES).

For Black participants, the interaction between stressful life events and cognitive vulnerability was significantly associated with depressive symptoms using the ASQ (β = 0.23, p = .002; see Table 2). That is, stressful life events were associated with significantly greater levels of depressive symptoms among Black participants who reported more cognitive vulnerability on the ASQ. Conversely, in the face of life stress, those reporting lower levels of ASQ-measured cognitive vulnerability showed little increase in depressive symptoms (see Figure 1). Accordingly, the pattern of effects observed with the ASQ fit a standard vulnerability model with an effect of the vulnerability factor only at elevated levels of stress. The overall model was significant, F(6, 157) = 9.16, p < .001, and accounted for 26% of the variance of depressive symptoms. Of note, the interaction of stressful life events with CSQ was not significant among Black participants. Stressful life events were not associated with depressive symptoms among Black participants who reported higher levels of CSQ-measured cognitive vulnerability (β = 0.05, p = .48; see Table 3). Accordingly, helplessness (ASQ) related cognitions but not hopelessness (CSQ) related cognitions served as a vulnerability to depression for Black participants.

Table 2.

Prediction of Depressive Symptom Amplification in Response to Life Stress Associated With Elevated ASQ Among Black and White Participants.

Predictor	β	SE	t	p
Black participants
Gender	0.14	1.42	2.07	.04
Age	−0.19	0.17	−2.71	.01
SES	−0.10	0.05	−1.39	.17
LES	0.36	0.11	4.75	.00
ASQ	0.28	0.97	4.02	.00
ASQ × LES	0.23	0.16	3.10	.00
White participants
Gender	0.01	1.29	0.09	.92
Age	0.03	0.18	0.46	.64
SES	0.02	0.04	0.29	.77
LES	0.12	1.00	1.82	.07
ASQ	0.07	0.81	1.01	.32
ASQ × LES	0.06	0.16	0.95	.35

Note: ASQ = Attributional Style Questionnaire; SE = standard error; SES = Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status; LES = Life Experiences Survey.

Figure 1.

Effect of life stress on depressive symptoms for Black participants. Examination at three levels of cognitive vulnerability measured with the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ).

Table 3.

Prediction of Depressive Symptom Amplification in Response to Life Stress Associated With Elevated CSQ Among Black and White Participants.

Predictor	β	SE	t	p
Black participants
Gender	0.18	1.44	2.58	.01
Age	−0.06	0.17	−0.85	.40
SES	−0.07	0.05	−1.01	.32
LES	0.26	0.11	3.60	.00
CSQ	0.32	0.76	4.38	.00
CSQ × LES	0.05	0.11	0.71	.48
White participants
Gender	−0.03	1.21	−0.45	.65
Age	0.06	0.17	0.94	.35
SES	0.02	0.04	0.35	.73
LES	0.09	0.09	1.52	.13
CSQ	0.33	0.60	5.51	.00
CSQ × LES	0.12	0.11	2.00	.05

Note: CSQ = Cognitive Style Questionnaire; SE = standard error; LES = Life Experiences Survey; SES = Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status.

For White participants, the interaction of stressful life events and ASQ-measured cognitive vulnerability was not significantly associated with depressive symptoms (β = 0.06, p = .35; see Table 2). However, consistent with our hypothesis, there was a significant CSQ × LES interaction (β = 0.12, p = .05; see Table 3), such that the impact of stressful life events on depressive symptoms was amplified among those with greater CSQ-measured cognitive vulnerability to depression (see Figure 2). Again, this pattern of effects fit a standard vulnerability model with an effect of the vulnerability factor only at elevated levels of stress. The overall model was significant, F(6, 241) = 6.21, p < .001, and accounted for 13% of the variance of depressive symptoms. Accordingly, greater hopelessness (CSQ) but not helplessness (ASQ) related cognitions served as a vulnerability factor for depression among White participants.

Figure 2.

Effect of life stress on depressive symptoms for White participants. Examination at three levels of cognitive vulnerability measured with the Cognitive Style Questionnaire (CSQ).

Discussion

To examine whether recent “improvements” in assessment of cognitive vulnerability were equally useful across groups with different sociohistorical contexts, we contrasted the performance of two different measures of cognitive vulnerability to see which better captured increased depressive symptoms in response to stress. The measures contrasted were the ASQ, meant to capture dimensions of vulnerability highlighted in the reformulated learned helplessness cognitive vulnerability theory (Peterson et al., 1982), and the CSQ, meant to capture dimensions of vulnerability highlighted in the hopelessness cognitive vulnerability theory (Abramson & Metalsky, 1986). We expected to see differential moderation of the impact of stress on depression symptoms in the two groups (Black participants and White participants) due to philosophical differences in orientation to collectivism and to the future: White participants (less collectivistic, more focused on future accomplishment) versus Black participants (more collectivistic, more focused on the present and past rather than the future). Results supported our conjecture of differential association in several ways. As expected, given the overlap in the cognitive theories, the ASQ and CSQ were significantly correlated in both groups, suggesting that they assess overlapping aspects of cognitive vulnerability to depression, but with important areas of difference. In keeping with concerns about enhanced cognitive vulnerability measurement for White participants but poorer assessment for Black participants, we also found that level of cognitive vulnerability differed between Black participants and White participants. That is, responses to cognitive vulnerability (the ASQ and CSQ) measures were not consistently associated with depressive symptoms in the same way for the two race groups. This pattern of results fit expectations, with the CSQ performing relatively better for White participants and the ASQ performing relatively better for Black participants in predicting the association between life stress and symptoms of depression.

These findings suggest that attention to themes fitting the sociocultural context of a particular group (in this case, White participants) can enhance assessment of cognitive vulnerability. The results also highlight the need for tailoring assessment to capture sociocultural context. Black participants hold a different history resulting in a different worldview orientation than White participants (see Schiele, 2005; Walker et al., 2010). Given different sociopolitical and sociocultural histories, it is important to recognize that a successful effort toward enhancing measures of vulnerability for White participants will not automatically generalize to other ethnic and racial groups, in this case Black participants. It is possible that other groups known to have a stronger collectivist orientation (e.g., Black participants, those from Eastern cultures, lower SES) or sociocultural backgrounds that may engender a stronger focus on the present (e.g., Black participants, lower SES groups) might be better served by a focus on cognitive vulnerability that are consonant with that sociocultural context.

These findings support the proposition that Black participants and White participants may have somewhat different cognitive vulnerability to depression. Moreover, Black participants reported less cognitive vulnerability overall than did White participants. The finding that Black participants report less cognitive vulnerability to depression has been previously reported (Stein et al., 2010; Thompson et al., 1998; Waschbusch et al., 2003). Although these group differences may represent true differences in cognitive vulnerability, other interpretations of these differences are also possible. An alternative interpretation is that Black participants may be less likely to endorse factors of cognitive vulnerability due to subcultural differences in the permissibility of and expression of distress (Baker, 2001). Though Black participants reported less cognitive vulnerability to depression than White participants, the dimensions of vulnerability captured in the ASQ showed greater salience for Black participants in its ability to capture cognitive vulnerability to depression. Therefore, although the degree of cognitive vulnerability is important to detect depression, what seems to be most important is capturing culturally and racially appropriate dimensions of cognitive vulnerability for different groups through the use of appropriate measures of cognitive vulnerability to depression. Another potential reason for the observed race group differences in overall cognitive vulnerability is that the hypothetical situations used to assess the different dimensions of cognitive vulnerability may focus on situations that are relatively less salient in the development of depressive symptoms for Black participants (i.e., a focus on individual self-worth and expectations about the future). These items have been normed with majority White samples and thus may not adequately capture vulnerability in Black samples.

One source of stress that differs by race/ethnicity is Black participants’ disproportionate exposure to race-related stressors, which have been found to be associated with psychological distress including depressive symptoms (Clark, Coleman, & Novak, 2004; Gibbons, Gerrard, Cleveland, Wills, & Brody, 2004; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Simons et al., 2002). Accordingly, one possible approach to enhancing the ASQ and CSQ may be to incorporate hypothetical situations that involve race-related stress in order to appropriately capture responses to this salient, stressful context in Black populations. Not capturing this salient form of stress for Black participants (i.e., race-related stress) may potentially explain the unexpected finding of no race group difference in stressful life events between Black participants and White participants. Given the sampled demographic (undergraduate students), it is possible that the two groups of participants may hold more similarities with respect to SES and thus may experience similar general stress levels. Thus, a more salient form of stress will be of benefit in adequately capturing differential stressors that may affect cognitive vulnerability to depression. The proposition that similarities in SES may explain the lack of significant difference in stressful life event between Black and White participants is further bolstered by the finding that the two racial categories did not differ by SES. Thus, this sample of participants may be more similar on general levels of distress than different. Therefore, future efforts to include experiences of race-related stress, as well as items assessing response to race-related scenarios might enhance both the ASQ and CSQ as measures of cognitive vulnerability to depression for Black participants.

The disparate manifestation of cognitive vulnerability to depression in Black participants and White participants would have implications for assessment and diagnosis. Misdiagnosis, or a focus on the wrong aspect of cognitive vulnerability in treatment for Black participants, may occur if there is a failure to appreciate subculturally specific expressions of cognitive vulnerability. In the current study, the ASQ was robust in predicting cognitive vulnerability for African Americans and thus may represent a better measure of cognitive vulnerability to depression for this group than the newer mode of assessment via the CSQ. In fact, the ASQ responses, when interacting with stress, accounted for greater variance in our model for African Americans than the CSQ did for European Americans. These finding emphasize the continued importance of assessing cognitive vulnerability to depression in African American populations, but highlights the need for valid measures of cognitive vulnerability that make allowance for varying patterns of expression of cognitive vulnerability to depression by racial category. Furthermore, a focus on a Eurocentric perspective of conceptualizing cognitive vulnerability has the potential to lead to poorer prediction of cognitive vulnerability to depression among Black participants. That is, if cognitive vulnerability to depression differs in Black participants and White participants based on worldview orientation and sociopolitical experiences, a solely Eurocentric measurement of cognitive vulnerability would limit clinician’s capacity to predict the development of depressive symptoms in Black populations. Continued and direct examination of the way we conceptualize and measure cognitive vulnerability to depression, and how these methods interact with life stress may continue to elucidate the different patterns of impact for Black participants and White participants, with potentially important consequences for theoretical models of depression, as well as prevention and clinical intervention.

There are several limitations to the current study that should be acknowledged. First, although self-report, paper-pencil assessments have been used in most examinations of cognitive vulnerability and depressive symptoms, it is possible that an alternative mode of questionnaire administration could yield a different pattern of results (Bowling, 2005; Eaton, Neufeld, Chen, & Cai, 2000). Innovative modes of assessing response to context may be particularly useful in future research aimed at making assessment of cognitive vulnerability more valid for Black participants. Second, and relatedly, we examined self-reported depressive symptoms and did not use clinical interviews to identify variation in clinical severity. Doing so had the advantage of focusing on a measure with known high validity, but may have decreased attention to symptoms associated with greater debilitation, outcomes that are more common for Black participants and of particular interest in the context of understanding cognitive vulnerability factors unique to Black participants (Williams et al., 2007). Third, the cross-sectional design of this study does not afford causal conclusions about the impact of cognitive vulnerability on the association between stressful life events and depressive symptoms that a prospective design would permit. Accordingly, the current results support the conclusion that valid assessment of cognitive vulnerability to depression is likely to focus on different measures for Black participants and White participants, but does not directly test the vulnerability hypothesis. Fourth, this study examined the impact of global life stressors (though as an artifact of the measures). However, for Black participants and other marginalized groups, stressors that are race-related, discrimination-based, or related to acculturative stress may be a critical aspect of assessment (e.g., Clark et al., 2004; Gibbons et al., 2004; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Simons et al., 2002). Therefore, it is imperative that future research examine how different types of stress may interact with cognitive biases. Given that cognitive factors are often a line of inquiry and treatment for depressive symptoms, it is important for future research to evaluate cultural context in order to expand assessment of cognitive vulnerability in culturally sensitive and inclusive ways. Last, the extant literature consistently highlights gender differences in depression (see Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001), whereby women report higher levels of depressive symptoms than men. However, the majority of our sample for both race groups consisted predominantly of women. Although we controlled statistically for gender in our analyses, future studies would benefit from a more even distribution of males and females in order to determine the generalizability of the current findings.

Conclusion

The current findings support the value of examining cognitive vulnerability to depression symptoms for Black participants as well as for White participants. Cognitive vulnerability coupled with experiences of stressful life events were significantly associated with depressive symptoms in both groups. At the same time, the results of the current analyses highlight subgroup cultural differences in cognitive vulnerability to depression that could be considered in future research aimed at developing optimal measures of cognitive vulnerability among Black participants. Thus, the current pattern of results can be taken as broad support for the hypothesis that, cultural context matters when addressing depressive symptoms and mental health outcomes across different race groups. Having some awareness that cultural variables influence symptom presentation can provide clinicians and researchers with better insight into the development, course, and expression of psychopathology for Black participants who are often underserved in clinical contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the University of Georgia through the Graduate School Dean’s Award to Temilola K. Salami.

Notes

References

Abela

J. R.

Sarin

(2002). Cognitive vulnerability to hopelessness depression: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 811-829.

Abela

J. R.

Webb

C. A.

Wagner

M.-H. R.

Adams

(2006). The role of self-criticism, dependency, and hassles in the course of depressive illness: A multiwave longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 328-338.

Abramson

L. Y.

Metalsky

G. I.

(1986). The Cognitive Style Questionnaire: Measurement of negative cognitive styles about self and consequences. Unpublished manuscript.

Abramson

L. Y.

Metalsky

G. I.

Alloy

L. B.

(1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358-372.

Abramson

L. Y.

Seligman

M. E.

Teasdale

J. D.

(1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Alloy

L. B.

Abramson

L. Y.

Walshaw

P. D.

Neeren

A. M.

(2006). Cognitive vulnerability to unipolar and bipolar mood disorders. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 25, 726-754.

Anderson

C. A.

Lindsay

J. J.

Bushman

B. J.

(1999). Research in the psychological laboratory truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3-9.

Ayalon

Young

M. A.

(2003). A comparison of depressive symptoms in African Americans and Caucasian Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 111-124.

Baker

(2001). Diagnosing depression in African Americans. Community Mental Health Journal, 37, 31-38.

10.

Ball

H. A.

McGuffin

Farmer

A. E.

(2008). Attributional style and depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, 275-278.

11.

Beck

A. T.

Ward

Mendelson

Mock

Erbaugh

(1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.

12.

Bowling

(2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27, 281-291.

13.

Clark

Coleman

A. P.

Novak

J. D.

(2004). Brief report: Initial psychometric properties of the Everyday Discrimination Scale in Black adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 363-368.

14.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Eaton

W. W.

Neufeld

Chen

L.-S.

Cai

(2000). A comparison of self-report and clinical diagnostic interviews for depression: Diagnostic interview schedule and schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry in the Baltimore epidemiologic catchment area follow-up. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 217-222.

16.

Elwood

L. S.

Mott

Williams

N. L.

Lohr

J. M.

Schroeder

D. A.

(2009). Attributional style and anxiety sensitivity as maintenance factors of posttraumatic stress symptoms: A prospective examination of a diathesis-stress model. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 544-557.

17.

Feagin

J. R.

Sikes

M. P.

(1994). Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

18.

Garber

Flynn

(2001). Predictors of depressive cognitions in young adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 353-376.

19.

Gibb

B. E.

Beevers

C. G.

Andover

M. S.

Holleran

(2006). The hopelessness theory of depression: A prospective multi-wave test of the vulnerability-stress hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 763-772.

20.

Gibbons

F. X.

Gerrard

Cleveland

M. J.

Wills

T. A.

Brody

(2004). Perceived discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: A panel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 517-529.

21.

Goodman

S. H.

Cooley

E. L.

Sewell

D. R.

Leavitt

(1994). Locus of control and self-esteem in depressed, low-income African-American women. Community Mental Health Journal, 30, 259-269.

22.

Greco

Brickman

A. L.

Routh

D. K.

(1996). Depression and coping in candidates for kidney transplantation: Racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 3, 337-353.

23.

Haeffel

G. J.

(2010). Cognitive vulnerability to depressive symptoms in college students: A comparison of traditional, weakest-link, and flexibility operationalizations. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 92-98.

24.

Haeffel

G. J.

Abramson

L. Y.

Brazy

P. C.

Shah

J. Y.

Teachman

B. A.

Nosek

B. A.

(2007). Explicit and implicit cognition: A preliminary test of a dual-process theory of cognitive vulnerability to depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 1155-1167.

25.

Haeffel

G. J.

Abramson

L. Y.

Voelz

Z. R.

Metalsky

G. I.

Halberstadt

Dykman

B. M.

. . . Alloy

L. B.

(2003). Cognitive vulnerability to depression and lifetime history of Axis I psychopathology: A comparison of negative cognitive styles (CSQ) and dysfunctional attitudes (DAS). Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 17(1), 3-22.

26.

Haeffel

G. J.

Gibb

B. E.

Metalsky

G. I.

Alloy

L. B.

Abramson

L. Y.

Hankin

B. L.

. . . Swendsen

J. D.

(2008). Measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression: Development and validation of the Cognitive Style Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 824-836.

27.

Hammack

P. L.

(2003). Toward a unified theory of depression among urban African American youth: Integrating socioecologic, cognitive, family stress, and biopsychosocial perspectives. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 187-209.

28.

Hankin

B. L.

Abela

J. R.

(2005). Development of psychopathology: A vulnerability-stress perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Hankin

B. L.

Abramson

L. Y.

(2002). Measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression in adolescence: Reliability, validity, and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31, 491-504.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

31.

Hollingshead

(1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

32.

Hunter

Cox

Teagle

Johnson

Mathew

Knight

. . . Smith

(2003). Measures for assessment of functioning and outcomes in longitudinal research on child abuse: Middle childhood (Vol. 2). Chapel Hill, NC: LONGSCAN Coordinating Center.

33.

Joe

Woolley

M. E.

Brown

G. K.

Ghahramanlou-Holloway

Beck

A. T.

(2008). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory–II in low-income, African American suicide attempters. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 521-523.

34.

Joiner

T. E.

Metalsky

G. I.

Wonderlich

S. A.

(1995). Bulimic symptoms and the development of depressive symptoms: The moderating role of attributional style. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 651-666.

35.

Kessler

R. C.

(2003). Epidemiology of women and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74, 5-13.

36.

Mizell

C. A.

(1999). Life course influences on African American men’s depression: Adolescent parental composition, self-concept, and adult earnings. Journal of Black Studies, 29, 467-490.

37.

Nolen-Hoeksema

(2001). Gender differences in depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 173-176.

38.

Oliver

Murphy

S. L.

Ferland

D. R.

Ross

M. J.

(2007). Contributions of the Cognitive Style Questionnaire and the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale to measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 51-69.

39.

Pascoe

E. A.

Smart Richman

(2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531-554.

40.

Paukert

A. L.

Pettit

J. W.

Perez

Walker

R. L.

(2006). Affective and attributional features of acculturative stress among ethnic minority college students. Journal of Psychology, 140, 405-419.

41.

Peterson

Semmel

Von Baeyer

Abramson

L. Y.

Metalsky

G. I.

Seligman

M. E.

(1982). The Attributional Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287-299.

42.

Rossier

Dahourou

McCrae

R. R.

(2005). Structural and mean-level analyses of the five-factor model and locus of control further evidence from Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 227-246.

43.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.

44.

Rotter

J. B.

(1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45, 489-493.

45.

Sarason

I. G.

Johnson

J. H.

Siegel

J. M.

(1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 932-946.

46.

Schiele

J. H.

(2005). Cultural oppression and the high-risk status of African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 35, 802-826.

47.

Schleider

J. L.

Vélez

C. E.

Krause

E. D.

Gillham

(2014). Perceived psychological control and anxiety in early adolescents: The mediating role of attributional style. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 38, 71-81.

48.

Simons

R. L.

Murry

McLoyd

Lin

K.-H.

Cutrona

Conger

R. D.

(2002). Discrimination, crime, ethnic identity, and parenting as correlates of depressive symptoms among African American children: A multilevel analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 371-393.

49.

Spann

Molock

S. D.

Barksdale

Matlin

Puri

(2006). Suicide and African American teenagers: Risk factors and coping mechanisms. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36, 553-568.

50.

Stein

G. L.

Curry

J. F.

Hersh

Breland-Noble

March

Silva

S. G.

. . . Jacobs

(2010). Ethnic differences among adolescents beginning treatment for depression. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 152-158.

51.

Sweeney

P. D.

Anderson

Bailey

(1986). Attributional style in depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 974-991.

52.

Thompson

Kaslow

N. J.

Weiss

Nolen-Hoeksema

(1998). Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire—Revised: Psychometric examination. Psychological Assessment, 10, 166-170.

53.

Van Haaften

Van de Vijver

(1999). Dealing with extreme environmental degradation: Stress and marginalization of Sahel dwellers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34, 376-382.

54.

Walker

R. L.

Alabi

Roberts

Obasi

E. M.

(2010). Ethnic group differences in reasons for living and the moderating role of cultural worldview. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 372-378.

55.

Waschbusch

D. A.

Sellers

D. P.

LeBlanc

Kelley

M. L.

(2003). Helpless attributions and depression in adolescents: The roles of anxiety, event valence, and demographics. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 169-183.

56.

Weissman

M. M.

Bruce

M. L.

Leaf

P. J.

Florio

L. P.

Holzer

(1991). Affective disorders. In Robins

L. N.

Regier

D. A.

(Eds.), Psychiatric disorders in America (pp. 53-80). New York, NY: Free Press.

57.

West

(1993). Race matters. New York, NY: Vintage.

58.

Williams

D. R.

Collins

(1995). US socioeconomic and racial differences in health: Patterns and explanations. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 349-386.

59.

Williams

D. R.

Gonzalez

H. M.

Neighbors

Nesse

Abelson

J. M.

Sweetman

Jackson

J. S.

(2007). Prevalence and distribution of major depressive disorder in African Americans, Caribbean blacks, and non-Hispanic whites: Results from the National Survey of American Life. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 305-315.

60.

Wolinsky

F. D.

Andresen

E. M.

Malmstrom

T. K.

Miller

J. P.

Schootman

Miller

D. K.

(2012). Childhood school segregation and later life sense of control and physical performance in the African American Health cohort. BMC Public Health, 12, 827. Retrieved from http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-12-827

61.

Zahodne

L. B.

Meyer

O. L.

Choi

Thomas

M. L.

Willis

S. L.

Marsiske

. . . Parisi

J. M.

(2015). External locus of control contributes to racial disparities in memory and reasoning training gains in active. Psychology and Aging, 30, 561-572.

62.

Zayas

L. H.

Jankowski

K. R.

McKee

M. D.

(2005). Parenting competency across pregnancy and postpartum among urban minority women. Journal of Adult Development, 12, 53-62.