CÓMPUTO DEL PLAZO RAZONABLE SEGÚN LA CIDH

i) The tripartite theory and attributional style:

As the tripartite theory of anxiety and depression has gained in popularity, so

researchers have become increasingly interested in determining how personality

variables previously thought to be specific to one or other of the disorders, might relate

to the dimensions of negative and positive affectivity. Although the attributional

models themselves make no reference to these constructs, a number of researchers

have suggested that pessimistic attributional style may be related to negative

affectivity, and hence not specific to depression (Clark et al, 1994; Mineka et al, 1995).

To date however only two studies have explicitly tested this hypothesis.

In a recent study Luten and Mineka (1994) found that undergraduates’ attributional

style was highly correlated not only with self-reported symptoms of depression, but

also a measure specifically assessing NA. In contrast the correlations between

attributional style and positive affectivity were not significantly different from zero.

Given that a number of states share a high loading on the dimension of NA these

results suggest that pessimistic attributional style was unlikely to be specific to

depression. However, Luten and Mineka (1994) only assessed participants attributions

for negative events (using the EASQ) and as a consequence it remained possible that

more pessimistic explanations for positive events might be uniquely associated with

In fact earlier research examining the relationship between attributional style and

positive and negative affectivity had produced strong support for this hypothesis

(Ahrens & Haaga, 1993). Ahrens and Haaga (1993) demonstrated a specific pattern of

associations between the dimensions of positive and negative affectivity and

undergraduates’ attributional style. Thus, positive affectivity was found to be

significantly related to attributional style for positive but not negative events, whilst

negative affectivity was associated uniquely with individual’s attributions for negative

events.

That attributional style appears to be differentially related to the constructs of positive

and negative affectivity has implications not only for the present study, but the

attributional literature as a whole. On the basis of these studies one can make a

number of predictions about the relationship between pessimistic attributional style and

not only anxiety, but the numerous other forms of psychological distress which have

been subsumed within the “meta-construct” of negative affectivity. Thus one might

expect a diverse range of constructs, including both depression and anxiety, to be

associated with a tendency to provide more pessimistic explanations for negative

events. In contrast, given that low levels of positive affectivity are thought to be

relatively unique to depression, one might predict a relatively specific association

between the latter and pessimistic attributional style.

Unfortunately, without an explicit measure of children’s PA and NA, no firm

conclusions can be drawn from the present study about the relationship of children’s

attributional style to these dimensions. However, the underlying structure of children’s

suggest that the conceptualisation of attributional style outlined above is a useful one.

Thus children’s symptoms of general anxiety and depression, which both the factor

analysis carried out within the present study and previous research suggest share a high

loading on the dimension of NA, were primarily associated with pessimistic

attributional style for negative events (r ranging from .18 to .34). In contrast those

symptoms o f social anxiety and depression which appeared consistent with low levels

of positive affectivity, were robustly correlated with a more pessimistic attributional

style for positive events (r ranging from -.25 to -.37).

In terms of existing adult research, there does appear to be at least some evidence to

support the predictions of the attributional extension of the tripartite theory. Consistent

with the present study Ahrens and Haaga (1993) found that, although pessimistic

attributions for negative events shared variance with both depression and anxiety,

specific unstable attributions for positive events were uniquely associated with

depression. More generally, in a recent review of attributional literature, Mineka et al

(1995) commented that it was much more common for attributional style for negative

events to be similar in depression and anxiety, than that for positive events. Finally,

consistent with the hypothesised association between pessimistic attributional style for

negative events and negative affectivity, research has shown an association between

the former and a diverse variety of outcomes from binge eating to compulsive

gambling (Peterson, 1991).

ii) The direction o f causality, vulnerability fa cto r or symptom?

Unlike previous attributional models of distress, the extension of the tripartite theory

between attributional style and positive and negative affectivity. Thus, on the basis of

this theory, it would be equally plausible to suggest that the provision of pessimistic

explanations for negative events is simply a symptom of high levels of general distress,

as a vulnerability factor.

There are several reasons for this. Clearly as correlational studies, neither the present

study, nor previous research examining the relationship between attributional style and

the dimensions of positive and negative affectivity, can reliably provide any information

about the direction of their relationship. More importantly perhaps, the outlined

theory is in the very earliest stages of conception, and as a consequence the evidence

for its validity as a whole is still largely circumstantial. It therefore seems somewhat

precipitous to make any strong predictions about the development of psychological

distress before the basic premises of the model have themselves been confirmed.

On a more theoretical level the vulnerability factor/symptoms of distress dichotomy

may well prove to be a misleading one. In common with a number of other constructs,

attempts to provide evidence for the status of attributional style as a diatheses for

psychological distress, have generally proved unsuccessful (Williams, 1992). As a

consequence, a number of researchers have suggested that that the tendency to

attribute events to more pessimistic causes constitutes a symptom of distress, rather

than a causal factor in its development. Although this may well be the case, it is also

possible that our current methods of understanding psychological distress are far too

simplistic, and fail to take into account the potential for reciprocal interactions between

A considerable amount of effort has been spent within empirical research exploring

potential vulnerability factors in the hope of developing a greater understanding of the

emergence of psychological distress. Although justifiable, this strategy has clearly

been to the detriment of our understanding of such variables roles as maintaining

factors. Yet such understanding is likely to be critical in determining therapeutic

interventions for established clinical disorders. As a consequence, for those variables

such as attributional style which have consistently been linked with current

symptomatology, a greater focus upon their role in maintaining, rather than causing

psychological distress, might well prove invaluable.

in) Summary

It is clear that no existing attributional model of distress can adequately explain either

the current study’s findings, or the growing body of adult literature suggesting a robust

association between anxiety and pessimistic attributional style, independent of

concurrent depressive symptoms. As a result we have chosen to explain such research

in terms of an extension of Watson and Clarks (1990) tripartite theory. It is recognised

however that the evidence for such an application, particularly with children, is

somewhat weak, for which reason subsequent sections outline some of the research

XVIII