The research in this article addresses the effects of cognitive load on cognitive processing
in depressed and non-depressed individuals. Specifically, it examines the differences in
processing of these individuals in making the correspondence bias. In general, findings
provide support for the hypothesis that depressed subjects are less likely than
non-depressed subjects to make correspondent inferences, but only when cognitive load is
low. When cognitive load is high, both groups are equally likely to make correspondent
inferences. The hypotheses posited by Yost & Weary were derived from the combination
of three theoretical knowledge bases: cognitive load, motivated processing, and the
correspondent bias. The authors have done an excellent job of reviewing the prevailing
research in these areas and in combining them to generate reasonable hypotheses. The
focus of the current analysis is to provide additional insight in relation to the specifics of
this article, and to explain how such research fits into the broader context and emerging
trends in social psychology today.
This study clears up some of the controversy in the literature about how depressed individuals differ in their processing of the social world around them from non-depressed individuals. Past studies cited in this article present conflicting evidence: that depression interferes with, or triggers, more purposive, effortful cognitive processing. Additionally, research by Weary et al. (1993) shows that the chronic perceptions of control loss in depressives generate feelings of uncertainty, and that it is mainly this uncertainty which drives them to search more extensively for accurate information and appraisals, in an attempt to regain a sense of control. This finding has only been shown indirectly, however, and seems to be mediated by available cognitive resources. The current study addresses these shortcomings head on by directly manipulating the amount of cognitive resources available to subjects (through the cognitive load manipulation), and then examines cognitive processes through the tendency to make the correspondent bias.
The predictions made by the authors are well-grounded in a theoretical context. Their methodology is solid and well-done. Use of the Beck Depression Inventory as an index of depression, with both pre- and post-test measures strengthens the conclusions made about depressed individuals, and decreases the possibility of unstable mood states as a confounding factor. It was also clear that the variable manipulations were effective because of the consistent and thorough use of manipulation checks. One weakness of this study lies in the operationalization of the cognitive load manipulation. High recall of the 6-digit number (that subjects were asked to memorize in the high cognitive load condition) is not necessarily evidence that subjects perceived this as an influence that was taxing or a load upon their cognitive resource pool. Although it does certainly imply that "the memory load was taken seriously", it could also be that subjects simply displayed good memory skills, and that, if subjects had been asked, they may have not construed this task as cognitively taxing. In the future, it would be useful to operationalize cognitive load in a more explicit manner, perhaps by asking subjects to memorize something more personally relevant or challenging.
The conclusions that the authors make about the place of this study in a broader context
are reasonable. Some of the controversy over the topic of study is cleared up, and a
grounded theoretical base is provided for future endeavors. This type of research is
valuable both for the advancement of several different theoretical bases (cognitive
processing, depression, and cognitive load), and for outlining future research questions.
This study is a prime example of the emerging trend in social psychology to integrate
disciplines and work together to tie concepts to each other in a meaningful and relevant
way. It is likely that this kind of research can also shed light on the stress and coping
literature, such that the reality of multiple stressors (if thought of as a form of cognitive
load) may be affecting the way in which different people process and cope with the world
around them. In generating new theories about the effects of cognitive load on different
populations, a fuller and richer understanding of the appraisal process, stress
management, and preferred coping styles may result.
Back to Top