Would his ideas constitute a model, a formal theory, a moderator variable, a
theoretical line of research, or in other words, just a theoretical idea? I
just teach undergrads about features of formal scientific theories, but they
soon find that anything passes for theory in psych textbooks and journals, and
authors research various principles, effects, etc., without necessarily seeking
the explanatory prowess of a developed theory. Learned helplessness in animals
can be shown, but indeed, the human equivalent seems linked to styles/habits of
attribution while its causal involvement in producing such experiences remains
moot. It may be more relevant when covering cognitive therapies for these
fundamentally neurobiological disorders. I enjoy mentioning the attributional
style ideas when covering issues in adjustment, abnormal, etc., but am not
convinced it deserves more than a gleeful mention allowing me to express my
social-cognitive biases.
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
peter...@svsu.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott O Lilienfeld" <slil...@emory.edu>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:07:11 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style
Gary et al.: Seligman's attributional model has been presented and tested in
many peer review articles over the past three decades, e.g.,
Abrahamson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned
helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 87, 49–74.
(just noticed that this article has been cited a whopping 4181 times
according to Google Scholar).
In dozens of published studies, the stability and globality attributional
dimensions have held up well as correlates of depression, the internality
dimension somewhat less so (although admittedly I haven't tracked this
literature all that closely of late). There is, as Gary notes, lively debate
about causal directionality. Lauren Alloy and others have conducted
longitudinal studies of these dimensions as predictors of depression in high
risk samples; such studies may strengthen the argument for causal
directionality, although of course they do not demonstrate it definitively
given the inherent logical problem with post-hoc ergo hoc conclusions.
...Scott
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Professor
Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice
Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences
(PAIS)
Emory University
36 Eagle Row
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
slil...@emory.edu
(404) 727-1125
Psychology Today Blog:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html
Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and
his play,
his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his
recreation,
his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing.
To him – he is always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Peterson [mailto:peter...@vmail.svsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:52 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style
Yes, I like some of his ideas but is his "theory" presented in peer-reviewed
journals or just in his popular books? Does he spell out clear explanations or
is he merely describing what he thinks is an important moderating factor
namely, attribution or post-event thinking? While such attributional processes
are interesting, I think even he has noted (with actual research citations)
that it does not really predict well depression or similar problems. Most
likely this attribution process is promoted by the proneness to depression.
Just wonderin' Gary
Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
989-964-4491
peter...@svsu.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beth Benoit" <beth.ben...@gmail.com>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:32:46 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [tips] Seligman's Explanatory Style
It's a favorite of mine too. I always cover it in just about every class. I
even manage to sneak it into my Psychology of Love and Sex class. (Use your
imagination for the example I use in that class!) I think it gives students a
world of information about looking at behavioral explanations for depression. I
introduce the basic concept of learned helplessness, then the negative
explanatory style. I'm attaching the PowerPoint slides I made to use when
explaining the "IGS" (internal, global, stable) explanatory style. Feel free to
use it. The example I usually use to go through the points is, "You applied for
a job, but didn't get it. How will you explain to yourself why you didn't get
the job?"
Beth Benoit
Granite State College
Plymouth State University
New Hampshire
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Britt, Michael <
michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com > wrote:
One of my favorite theories (which has now found a home in the "positive
psychology" movement) is Seligman's ideas regarding the effects of your
explanatory style (especially in your reaction to negative events) on your
mood. In the early days he talked about a negative style as one that is
Internal ("I'm stupid!"), Stable ("I'll never get this!") and Global ("I'm
going to fail at other things as well!"). Recently in his more popular books I
see that he has changed these terms to Personal, Persistent and Pervasive.
Whatever you call them, I rather like the whole theory and certainly think it's
worth teaching at the introductory level. I checked a couple of intro books and
to my surprise I found very little in-depth coverage of these ideas. I found
explanatory style covered briefly in the Personality chapter, and then in the
Stress chapters of two other intro books. Too bad - for such a useful theory.
Why do you think it doesn't get more exposure? Too much material to cover in
one book I suppose.
Michael
Michael Britt
mich...@thepsychfiles.com
www.thepsychfiles.com
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ( bsouthe...@frostburg.edu )
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
