Untitled

288 EFFECTS OF STRESSless. This model is a classic vulnerability-stress model because negative cognitivestyles (the vulnerability) contribute only to the occurrence of depression inthe presence, but not the absence, of a negative event (the stress). An additionalfeature of the model is that negative cognitions such as hopelessness mediate thelink between the Cognitive Vulnerability × Stress component and the onset ofdepression. The model also features a transactional process in which increases indepression or cognitive vulnerability itself can contribute to the creation of furtherdependent, negative events.We (Abramson et al., 2002; MacCoon, Abramson, Mezulis, Hankin, & Alloy,2006) elaborated the model to emphasize selective attention in the causal chainand connect the concepts of cognitive vulnerability and rumination, another cognitivefactor shown to be important in depression onset (Just & Alloy, 1997; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000; Spasojevic & Alloy, 2001), duration (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991),and severity (Just & Alloy, 1997), as well as in gender differences in depressionamong adults (Nolen-Hoeksema & Jackson, 2001). Self-regulation theorists(Carver & Scheier, 1998) emphasize that when faced with a negative event, it isadaptive to switch attention to this event, find a resolution, and then continue goaldirectedbehavior (i.e., the self-regulatory cycle). Selective attention often remainsfocused on the negative event until it is resolved or reduced. We highlighted threeways to exit this self-regulatory cycle: generate a solution to the problem, decreasethe importance of the event, or distract attention away from the problem.Cognitively vulnerable individuals should have difficulty with all three exits dueto their negative inferences.For example, if a cognitively vulnerable adolescent attributes not getting a dateto “ugliness,” no solution is readily available. Instead, cognitively vulnerable individualsbecome “stuck” in the self-regulatory cycle with their attention focusedon negative cognitive content because the inferences they generate in response tonegative events lead only to yet further perceived problems (e.g., “no one willmarry me because I am so ugly”) rather than to resolutions. Such self-regulatoryperseveration (Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987) constitutes rumination becauseselective attention remains focused on negative content, which, in turn, shouldresult in the spiral into clinically significant depression. This self-regulatory perspective,then, highlights rumination as mediating the effects of cognitive vulnerabilityon depression.Evidence for the Cognitive Vulnerability-TransactionalStress ModelThe cognitive vulnerability-transactional stress model has garnered very considerableempirical support. Much of the most important evidence for the theorycomes from the Temple–Wisconsin Cognitive Vulnerability to Depression (CVD)Project (Alloy & Abramson, 1999) and related studies. The CVD Project is alandmark, collaborative, two-site study that uses a behavioral high-risk design