Evaluation CA Explanation

• S-research support. Koster et al used student volunteers who took part in an attention task and were presented with positive, negative and neutral words. They found that depressed participants spent longer attending to the negative words than the non-depressed group. Shows how selective attention and cognitive biases in people with depression can reinforce negative thoughts. Increases validity
• S- practical application. Both Ellis' ABC model and Beck's cognitive explanation of depression have led to practical applications in the treatment of depression. From our understanding of negative schemas, treatments like CBT which target faulty schemas and irrational beliefs and breaks them down and replaces them with positive beliefs. Beck reviewed the effectiveness of CBT and found it highly effective in treating depression. Thus showing that the assumptions of the cognitive explanations are valid and can improve lives
• W-overly focused on internal mental thoughts and ignores credible research from other approaches. The CA underplays biological aspects like the role of low levels of neurotransmitters like serotonin in the development of depression. Giltin found that drug therapies are effective in treating depression. This solidifies the validity of the BA. Therefore it would be better to take a holistic approach using both biological and psychological theories. Since the CA doesn't do that, it can be considered incomplete.
• W-the evidence it relies on is largely correlational. Because of this we can't determine if the negative schemas / irrational beliefs cause depression or are a consequence of depression. The former theory would validate the cognitive theory and the later theory would point to an alternative cause of the depression. Depressive tendencies and moods may have developed from imitating role models showing similar behaviour. Because the supporting research is inconclusive and has questionable validity, the validity of the approach also decreases.