Depression, nondepression, and cognitive illusions: reply to Schwartz.
In his comment, Schwartz argued that the Alloy and Abramson findings call into question the hypothesized causal link between learned helplessness and depression. Schwartz's contention is based on his interpretation of the Alloy and Abramson findings as showing that nondepressives cannot detect noncontingency. Although we argue that Schwartz has misinterpreted our data, we agree with his general contention that nondepressives may be relatively invulnerable to depression. We discuss the implications of our data for the learned helplessness theory as well as for other cognitive theories of depression. In addition, we evaluate Schwartz's intriguing motivational account of depressive accuracy in judging response-outcome contingencies. Finally, in response to Schwartz's question of whether nondepressives' errors in judging contingency are really errors at all, we suggest it is important to distinguish among error, irrationality, and maladaptiveness when discussing cognitive bias.
D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D001245:Association Learning; D003071:Cognition; D003866:Depressive Disorder / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D007088:Illusions; D007389:Internal-External Control; D009042:Motivation; D011582:Psychological Theory; D011936:Reality Testing