Evaluating the Cognitive Model, Explained

UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 6.3 Free with a free account

Evaluating the Cognitive Model

Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 6: Cognitive Theories in Abnormal PsychologySection 6.3 · lesson 26 of 9711 min · free with a free account

← Practical CBT Strategies: Thought Restructuring and Behavioral ActivationNext lesson: Core Ideas of the Humanistic-Existential Approach →

Earn 3 college credits for Abnormal PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 180 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Abnormal Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

The strongest outcome evidence in the course, and the least settled account of why.

  • State the model's strengths, each in its strongest form
  • State its principal limitations with equal seriousness
  • Explain the causal-direction problem and the field's response
  • Separate the claim that a treatment works from the claim that a model is right

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,535 words). Read along, or search it.

Cognitive Theories in Abnormal Psychology

Evaluating the Cognitive Model

This evaluation is deliberately two-sided, and it does not end in a verdict. It is written to be as even-handed as the ones in chapters four and five. But the temptation runs differently here, and it is worth naming. This model has the strongest outcome evidence in the course. And it would be easy to let that settle questions it does not settle. Treatment effectiveness and causal accuracy are separate claims. And the second is considerably less secure than the first. We cover four strengths, then the limitations, each in its strongest form. And it is educational only: not a basis for diagnosis, for you or for anyone else.

Testability

Constructs Turned Into Measurements

Start with testability, because the model's constructs have been made measurable. Automatic thoughts are recorded as they occur. Attributional style is assessed with structured instruments. Attentional bias toward threat is measured with reaction-time tasks. And memory bias is measured by recall of previously presented material. Predictions follow that can fail. And these have been tested extensively in controlled designs. Now the response, and it concerns what most of the measurement rests on. Self-report, which is circular in a specific way. A person who is depressed, asked to report negative thoughts, reports negative thoughts. And the finding that depressed people think negatively restates what depression is. The reaction-time and recall measures escape that, which is why they matter more.

Three More Strengths

Outcome, Reach, and Transparency

Treatment outcome first, and this should be stated without hedging. Cognitive-behavioral approaches have one of the strongest evidence bases in the field. But outcome evidence establishes that the treatment works. Not that the model is correct. It applies with unusual force here, because the treatment is a package of several components. Any of those could be doing the work. There is also researcher allegiance: trials run by proponents tend to produce favorable results. Second strength, explanatory reach. It explains what the behavioral model could not. The response is that the reach may be too great. Third, transparency. The model is taught to the person receiving treatment. And the person leaves with a method rather than an outcome. The response is that transparency is also a demand, and not equally available to everyone.

Direction

The Central Scientific Limitation

Now the central scientific limitation, and it is the one flagged in six point one. Distorted cognition and psychological disorder are reliably associated. The model's claim is that the cognition comes first. Association does not establish that. And there is direct evidence for the reverse. Experimentally induced low mood produces more negative recall. So negative thinking may be a symptom of low mood, rather than its cause. Now the strongest response, because the field has done more than assert a direction. Prospective longitudinal designs measure cognitive style before onset. There is support for that in people who are not currently depressed. And treatment studies show cognitive change followed by symptom change. But each of those responses has a weakness.

Three Accounts

All Consistent With the Same Association

Three accounts fit the same association. First, cognition causes mood: the model's claim. The design that tests it measures cognitive style before onset. Second, mood causes cognition. Negative thinking as a symptom. The design that tests it induces a mood and watches the thinking change. Third, some other factor causes both. That is the hardest to test, because the factor has to be named before it can be ruled out. Each is fully consistent with observing that negative cognition and low mood go together. Which is why the correlational literature cannot settle the question. Prospective prediction is still consistent with a shared third factor. Mood induction shows short-term laboratory effects, and the inference to onset is long. So the honest position is that cognition and mood influence each other, in both directions.

Mechanism

The Sharpest Open Question

The mechanism question is sharper than the direction question. Dismantling research separates a treatment into components and tests them individually. Behavioral activation delivered alone has matched full protocols for depression. Exposure alone performs comparably for several anxiety presentations. Follow that through. If components that do not target cognition give the same result, then the cognitive element may not be the active ingredient. First, behavioral experiments and exposure both change beliefs. Activation changes what a person believes about whether anything helps. Second, equivalence in average outcome is not equivalence for every person. Third, mediation analyses do find cognitive change accounting for part of the effect. And notice the odd structure. The treatment's effectiveness is not in doubt. The account of why it works is.

Depressive Realism

An Objection That Inverts the Premise

Depressive realism is an objection that inverts the model's premise. People with depressive symptoms sometimes judge their own influence more accurately. More accurately than people without symptoms, who tend to overestimate. If that generalizes, the depressed person is not distorting. They are seeing clearly. Now the methodological criticisms, which are substantial. The original demonstrations used a narrow laboratory task. Judging control over a light. Generalizing from that to self-appraisal and the future is a considerable leap. Findings have been inconsistent across replications. And most of the work used students with elevated symptom scores. Accuracy on one task is also compatible with substantial inaccuracy elsewhere. But here is what survives regardless: the model cannot assume a negative appraisal is distorted.

Context

The Problem Is Not Always Inside the Head

This next objection is the most serious in the chapter. The model locates the problem inside the person's head. But a person who is poor, or discriminated against, or living with violence They are distressed because of their situation. Treating appraisal as the target diverts attention from the conditions producing distress. It is considerably cheaper to offer twelve sessions than to change material circumstances. The strongest response is that competent practice does not do this. Checking whether an appraisal is accurate is the first step. And restructuring an accurate appraisal is identified as an error, not as the method. So the criticism lands on incompetent practice, and on policy-level use. The model does offer something real: agency, without telling anyone their situation is imaginary. Unsettled: a model whose target is inside the person gets commissioned for problems outside them.

Responsibility

What the Model Claims, and What People Hear

The next objection concerns what people hear, rather than what the model claims. If distress follows from appraisal, the person's distress can appear to be their own doing. That is not the model's claim. It is frequently what is heard. Someone told their thinking is distorted may conclude they are blamed for being unwell. And someone who does the work and does not improve may conclude they failed at it. Framing genuine adversity as distorted thinking is inaccurate and harmful. And it happens. Responsible practice works actively against this. Distortions are presented as ordinary features of every mind under pressure. The accuracy check comes before any assumption of distortion. And there is a real asymmetry: the framings are often experienced as relieving, not blaming. What remains unsettled is whether the risk is inherent or incidental. And it is the mirror image of the psychodynamic model, criticized for the opposite failing.

Scope And Delivery

Where It Is Not the Primary Frame

Now scope, and where this should not be the primary frame. First, when the appraisal is accurate. Real threat, real adversity, real loss. The work is on the situation, and treating the belief is useless and insulting. Second, when reality-testing is compromised. In acute psychosis the method has an adjunctive role, not a first-line one. Third, where the capacities the method needs are absent. Fourth, when practical need is the pressing thing. Notice the criterion, and how it differs from the behavioral one. This model is strongest where distress turns on an interpretation that could be otherwise. The behavioral criterion was whether an identifiable contingency was present. One more limitation, about delivery. Trials use selected participants. So effects are correspondingly smaller, and dropout is real.

From Within

Two Developments, and Where the Model Stands

The field has not been static in the face of these criticisms. Third-wave approaches shift the target from the content of thought. To the person's relationship with it. That answers several criticisms at once. the causal-direction problem matters less, and depressive realism loses its purchase. It is also a partial concession: moving away from correcting content accepts a limit. The second development is transdiagnostic process accounts. these identify processes operating across conditions. Repetitive negative thinking, avoidance, attentional control. It is integrated into mainstream practice, and dominant in outcome research. Its clinical utility is well established. Its causal claims are less settled, and that asymmetry is the most important thing here.

Composite Cases

Diane and Marcus, Both 44, Same Belief

Two composite cases, presented together because the contrast is the exercise. Diane is forty-four, and is convinced she is about to be dismissed. Her appraisals for six years have been consistently good. She has had no warning of any kind, and the organization is not making redundancies. The belief rests on one meeting in which her manager seemed distracted. The appraisal is not supported by the evidence, and the maintenance cycle is visible. Marcus is also forty-four, and is also convinced he is about to be dismissed. His department has announced a restructure. Two colleagues in comparable posts were let go last month. His appraisal is accurate. There is no distortion to identify. Restructuring it would be dishonest, and experienced as being told a real threat is imaginary. What is required instead is practical: advice on his position, the arrears, and available support. What separates them is not the belief's content or intensity, but whether it fits the evidence.

About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study

Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study

Understand mental health disordersAbnormal Psychology covers how psychological disorders are defined, assessed, explained and treated. It is a core course for psychology majors and useful for nursing, social work, counseling and criminal justice.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Evaluating the Cognitive Model

What are the strengths of the cognitive model of abnormal psychology?
The cognitive model's main strengths are testability, treatment outcomes, explanatory reach, and transparency. Its constructs, such as attentional bias and attributional style, have been turned into measurements and tested in controlled designs. Cognitive-behavioral treatments have one of the strongest evidence bases in the field, the model explains differences the behavioral model could not, and it is taught to the person receiving treatment, who leaves with a method rather than only an outcome.
Does negative thinking cause depression, or does depression cause negative thinking?
The evidence suggests that negative thinking and low mood influence each other in both directions. The cognitive model claims thinking comes first, and longitudinal studies that measure cognitive style before onset give it some support. However, experimentally induced low mood also produces more negative recall, and a third factor could cause both. Because all three accounts fit the same association, correlational findings alone cannot settle which comes first.
What is depressive realism?
Depressive realism is the finding that people with depressive symptoms sometimes judge their own control more accurately than people without symptoms, who tend to overestimate it. Taken at face value, it suggests depressed thinking may be realistic rather than distorted. The original studies used a narrow laboratory task, replications have been inconsistent, and many participants were students. What survives is the caution that a negative appraisal should not be assumed to be distorted.
If CBT works, does that prove the cognitive model is correct?
No, evidence that a treatment works does not establish that the model explaining it is correct. CBT is a package of components, and dismantling studies show behavioral activation alone can match full protocols for depression, while exposure alone performs comparably for several anxiety problems. This raises doubt about whether changing thoughts is the active ingredient, though mediation analyses find that cognitive change accounts for part of the effect.

About the Abnormal Psychology course

How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 97 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 97 lessons total about 24 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.

97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Abnormal Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Abnormal Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →