Journal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 117, No. 1, 16 –31 0021-843X/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.117.1.16

Emergence of Attributional Style and Its Relation to Depressive Symptoms

David A. Cole, Jeffrey A. Ciesla, Danielle H. Dallaire, Farrah M. Jacquez, Ashley Q. Pineda,
Beth LaGrange, Alanna E. Truss, Amy S. Folmer, Carlos Tilghman-Osborne, and Julia W. Felton
Vanderbilt University

The development of depressive attributional style (AS) and its role as a cognitive diathesis for depression
were examined in children and adolescents (Grades 2–9). In a 4-wave longitudinal study of 3 overlapping
age cohorts, AS, negative life events, and depressive symptoms were evaluated every 12 months.
Consistency of children’s attributions across situations was moderately high at all ages. The cross-
sectional structure of AS changed with age, as stability became a more salient aspect of AS than
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

internality and globality. The structure of AS also changed, becoming more traitlike as children grew
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

older. In longitudinal analyses, evidence of a Cognitive Diathesis ⫻ Stress interaction did not emerge
until Grades 8 and 9, suggesting that AS may not serve as a diathesis for depression at younger ages.
Results suggest that attributional models of depression may require modification before they are applied
across developmental levels.

Keywords: depression, children, adolescents, longitudinal, cognitive style

When does attributional style (AS) become stylelike, and how
does its relation to depressive symptoms change with age? Help-
lessness and hopelessness models of depression suggest that a
negative cognitive diathesis interacts with stressful life events in a
manner that predicts increases in depression (e.g., Abramson,
Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989; Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978;
Seligman, Abramson, Semmel, & von Baeyer, 1979). The refor-
mulated helplessness model defines this cognitive diathesis as the
tendency to attribute negative life events (NLEs) to internal, stable,
global causes (e.g., I got a bad grade on the math test because I
never do well in school). In contrast, hopelessness theory defines
the diathesis in terms of stability and globality, but not internality.
Although these models derive from theory and research that focus
on adults, they have been applied to younger populations with
relatively infrequent consideration of developmental factors.
David A. Cole, Jeffrey A. Ciesla, Danielle H. Dallaire, Farrah M.
Jacquez, Ashley Q. Pineda, Beth LaGrange, Alanna E. Truss, Amy S.
Folmer, Carlos Tilghman-Osborne, and Julia W. Felton, Department of
Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University. Danielle H.
Dallaire is now at the Department of Psychology, College of William and
Mary, and Farrah M. Jacquez is now at the Department of Pediatrics,
Mailman Center for Child Development.
This research was supported in part by Grant R01MH64650 from the
National Institute on Mental Health and by Grant P30HD15052 from the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Vanderbilt
University. We are grateful to the Nashville Metropolitan Public School
System and to Ed Binkley for their assistance. We are also immensely
grateful to our many research assistants, including Elizabeth Byrne, Erica
Delgado, Monique Ornelas, Kelly Lawver, Christy Resnick, Rebekah
Travis, Dana Warren, Dayna Watson, and Erica Williams. We would also
like to thank the following staff members: Anne Cameron Morrow, Mary
Payne, and Katie Von Canon.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David A.
Cole, Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt
University, Peabody MSC 512, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN 37203.
E-mail: david.cole@vanderbilt.edu
By definition, a diathesis is a pre-existing characteristic that
increases risk for a subsequent disorder. In depression research,
most putative diatheses have their pathological effects by interact-
ing with (or potentiating the impact of) NLEs. A key point is that
the diathesis exists prior to both the NLE and the emergence of the
disorder (Kraemer, Stice, Kazdin, Offord, & Kupfer, 2001). Most
cognitive models of depression do not elaborate extensively on the
developmental origins of depressogenic cognitions, except to al-
lude to their emergence in childhood, possibly as a result of NLEs
or problematic parenting. Recent research supports this claim,
demonstrating that parenting style, stressful life events, negative
inferential feedback from parents, and child maltreatment are
important in the development of a depressogenic AS (e.g., Alloy et
al., 2001; Bruce et al., 2006; Garber & Flynn, 2001; Gibb et al.,
2001; Ingram, 2001; Mezulis, Hyde, & Abramson, 2006). These
findings are problematic for the direct extension of attributional
models of depression into childhood. If AS is indeed under con-
struction in childhood, then it may not precede stressful life events
or moderate their effects on depression in children, as it does in
adults. This is not to say that children do not make trait attribu-
tions; they do (e.g., Gnepp & Chilamkurti, 1988; Heyman &
Gelman, 1998; Yuill & Pearson, 1998)—although children and
adults may not mean quite the same things by similar-sounding
traitlike words. Nor is this to say that children’s attributions are
unrelated to depression; they are (e.g., Conley, Haines, Hilt, &
Metalsky, 2001; Gladstone & Kaslow, 1995; Joiner & Wagner,
1995; Mezulis, Abramson, Hyde, & Hankin, 2004). Our point is
that what children mean when they describe a cause as internal,
stable, and global is limited by their experience and level of
cognitive development and may not quite represent the constructs
that are embedded in certain diathesis–stress models of depression
until later childhood or early adolescence.
Developmental research provides suggestions as to when differ-
ent aspects of AS may begin to emerge. Up through age 7, children
do not consistently understand that traitlike, internal causes are
stable over time or across situations (Rholes & Ruble, 1984). For

16
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
example, young children believe that negative traits will change
and that they even may become positive over time (Freedman-
Doan et al., 2000; Lockhart, Chang, & Story, 2002). Also, younger
children regard positive traits as more malleable than do older
children (Heyman & Giles, 2004). Nicholls’s (1978, 1984, 1990)
research suggests that children up through age 7 conflate the
concepts of ability (an internal, stable, global characteristic) and
effort (an internal, unstable, specific concept). By age 10, children
are capable of attributing events to various dispositional, traitlike
causes (e.g., ability, laziness, etc.) either in themselves or in others,
and they show a rudimentary understanding that certain traits are
consistent over time and across situations (Rholes & Ruble, 1984).
For example, Alvarez, Ruble, and Bolger (2001) showed that
10-year-old children see generosity and selfishness as dispositional
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
traits that are stable over time and across situations. Around this
age, children also adopt more of a fixed-entity conception of
ability (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). They understand that intelli-
gence or ability is a relatively stable and global characteristic that
limits the effectiveness of increased effort (Miller, 1985; Nicholls,
1978; Nicholls & Miller, 1984; Normandeau & Gobeil, 1998;
Stipek & DeCotis, 1988). By age 12, a still more mature concep-
tion of traitlike characteristics emerges, in which ability limits the
effectiveness of effort, but sustained effort or practice can enhance
certain abilities over time (see also Barenboim, 1981; Blumenfeld,
Pintrich, & Hamilton, 1986). Comparison of the perceptions of
one’s own traits to the perceptions of similar traits in others
suggests that very similar developmental trajectories pertain
(Nicholls & Miller, 1984).
In summary, developmental research has revealed that very
young children may be internally consistent in their use of attri-
butions; however, what children actually mean by such attributions
continues to evolve over the course of middle childhood and early
adolescence. On the basis of these findings, we hypothesize that
measures of AS evince relatively high levels of internal consis-
tency within a narrow age range or developmental level; however,
such measures may not show strong evidence of stability across
age, because children’s understanding of causal relations changes
developmentally.
The goal of the current article is to address four broad issues
critical to the application of attributional models of depression to
children. First, at what ages do the attributional dimensions of
internality, stability, and globality begin to show sufficient cross-
situational consistency to be considered key components of an
AS? Second, when do stability, globality, and internality become
sufficiently integrated so as to constitute either a helplessness or
hopelessness AS? Third, when do children’s attributions about
negative events show sufficient cross-time stability to be consid-
ered stylelike? Fourth, when does either a helplessness or a hope-
lessness AS begin to relate to depressive symptoms in a manner
consistent with theory?
When Do Internality, Stability, and Globality Begin to
Show Sufficient Internal Consistency to Be Considered
Key Components of Attributional Style?
For AS to be stylelike, one would expect a relatively high degree
of consistency across diverse situations. Fortunately, most mea-
sures of AS provide opportunities to observe such consistency
because they inquire about a variety of different events. That is,
17
clues to the cross-situational consistency of children’s attributions
lie in the internal consistency of these measures (i.e., alpha reli-
ability) and in factor analytic work showing that children’s re-
sponses to questions about diverse situations are unifactorial.
For years, the Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire
(CASQ; Seligman et al., 1984) was almost the only measure used
to assess depressive AS in children. Studies that have used this
measure have consistently reported quite low reliabilities (ranging
from .42 to .67 for the negative composite, from .43 to .56 for
internality, from .13 to .42 for stability, and from .31 to .39 for
globality; Gladstone & Kaslow, 1995; Seligman et al., 1984). Low
reliabilities have also been obtained with a revised version of this
instrument (Thompson, Kaslow, Weiss, & Nolen-Hoeksema,
1998). Until recently, it was unclear whether this was due to the
psychometric properties of the CASQ or to the inconsistency of
children’s actual attributions. In 2001, Conley et al. developed an
interview-based measure of children’s AS called the Children’s
Attributional Style Interview (CASI). Alpha reliability for the
various CASI subscales ranged from .73 to .82, even for children
as young as 5 to 7. Although Conley et al. did not present
reliabilities for internality, stability, and globality separately, they
did report alphas of .80 and .78 for the helplessness and hopeless-
ness composites, respectively.
This preliminary research with the CASI suggests that depres-
sive attributions may be consistent across a variety of hypothetical
events, even in relatively young children. Although factor analysis
of such measures could also yield information relevant to the
cross-situational consistency of AS, we have found no published
factor analytic work on the CASI (or the CASQ).
When Do Internality, Stability, and Globality Become
Integrated Components of AS?
Researchers typically combine information about internality,
stability, and globality to form a composite AS score. To measure
a hopelessness AS, stability and globality are sometimes com-
bined; to measure a helplessness AS, all three subscales are often
summed (e.g., Cole & Turner, 1993; Hankin, Abramson, & Siler,
2001; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1992). This practice
reflects the underlying theory that depressive attributions are char-
acterized by two or three of these dimensions, not just one. This
practice is consistent with the conception of AS as a construct that
is superordinate to the various lower order attributional dimen-
sions. Unfortunately, no study has yet addressed this question.
Indeed, we have not even been able to find factor analyses of
instruments designed to measure AS in children. Therefore, an
important developmental question arises: When do internality,
stability, and/or globality become sufficiently correlated to justify
their aggregation into a either a helplessness or a hopelessness AS
construct?
At What Age Are Depressive Attributions Stable Enough
to Be Regarded as Stylelike?
A third kind of evidence that attributions are stylelike emerges
when individuals demonstrate that they tend to make similar causal
attributions across somewhat distant points in time. In adults,
evidence has emerged that depressive attributions appear to have
moderately traitlike characteristics (Hankin, Fraley, & Abela,
 18 COLE ET AL.
2005). No such evidence yet exists for children. Developmental
evidence that young children may not understand internal causes to
be stable (Fincham & Cain, 1986) does not necessarily imply that
their own causal attributions are inconsistent over time. Although
it is reasonable to hypothesize that developmental changes in
children’s understanding of internality, stability, and globality may
lead to the temporal instability of their causal attributions, this
relation remains an empirical question. The question becomes,
When might children be expected to begin to show stability over
time in the kinds of causal attributions they make?
Although studies have not examined the stability of children’s
internal, stable, global attributions in general, they have examined
the stability of one particular class of internal, stable, global
beliefs: children’s beliefs in their own competence. Wigfield et al.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(1997) examined changes in children’s beliefs about their own
academic and athletic abilities over the course of middle child-
hood. Individual differences in these beliefs became increasingly
stable from Grade 1 to Grade 6. In a longer longitudinal study,
Cole et al. (2001) reported that 6-month stability coefficients for
five domains of self-perceived competence increased steadily be-
tween Grades 3 and 12 (except for a brief drop in stability during
the transition from elementary to middle school). These results
suggest that one set of internal, stable, global beliefs, self-
competence, becomes increasingly stable (and in that sense, style-
like) over the course of middle childhood and adolescence.
Recent advances in structural equation modeling provide excit-
ing new ways to distinguish time-varying and time-invariant as-
pects of a construct in the context of multiwave data. Building on
work by Kenny and Zautra (1995) and Steyer and Schmitt (1994),
Cole, Martin, and Steiger (2005) introduced the trait–state–
occasion model. The trait–state– occasion model enables us to
partition the variance of AS into two latent constructs. One is time
invariant, traitlike, or stylelike, insofar as individual differences on
this dimension are completely stable over the examined time
interval. The other is time varying, insofar as individual differ-
ences on this dimension change over time. Central to the current
hypothesis, the trait–state– occasion model enables us to test
whether AS contains significant trait variance during a particular
developmental period or range of ages. As children grow older, we
hypothesize that AS becomes increasingly stylelike (i.e., will have
increasing amounts of trait variance).
When Do Attributions Begin to Function as a Cognitive
Diathesis for Depression?
To address this question well, a study must meet three key
criteria. First, because the question reflects an underlying
diathesis–stress model, the study must test the interaction between
AS and NLEs as a predictor of depressive symptoms. Second,
because the underlying theory suggests that AS predicts change in
depression over time, the study must be longitudinal. Third, be-
cause the question asks about changes in the strength of the
interaction as a function of age, the study must either test the
interaction separately for different age groups or examine age as a
moderator of the AS ⫻ Negative Life Event interaction.
Only four studies have met all three of these criteria. In the first
study, Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (1992) followed a sample of 352
third graders over a 5-year period. They assessed NLEs, AS, and
depressive symptoms every 6 months (nine times) over this time.
At the earlier times, results revealed that negative events, but not
AS, predicted depressive symptoms. At later times, AS and the
AS ⫻ NLE interaction predicted change in depression symptoms.
Although age was not formally tested as a moderator of the AS ⫻
NLE interaction, this pattern suggested that the longitudinal
diathesis–stress effect was stronger in Grades 5 through 7 than in
Grades 3 through 4. In the second study, Conley et al. (2001)
followed a sample of 147 younger children (ages 5 to 10) over a
relatively brief interval (19 to 26 days). They reported a small but
statistically significant three-way (Age ⫻ AS ⫻ NLE) interaction,
in which the AS ⫻ NLE interaction was slightly stronger for older
children (8 –10 years old) compared with the younger children
(5–7 years old). The third study was Abela’s (2001) investigation
of 280 nonreferred third and seventh graders over a 6-week inter-
val. Their analyses revealed a significant Grade ⫻ AS ⫻ NLE
interaction, when AS was coded as the stable– global (hopeless-
ness) composite of the CASQ. Follow-up analyses supported the
diathesis–stress hypothesis in seventh graders but not in third
graders. Fourth was Gibb and Alloy’s (2006) 6-month longitudinal
study of 415 nonreferred fourth and fifth graders. They reported a
significant hopelessness Grade ⫻ AS ⫻ NLE (verbal victimiza-
tion) interaction in which the AS ⫻ NLE interaction was signifi-
cant for fifth graders but not for fourth graders.
Ten other longitudinal studies have tested the AS ⫻ NLE
interaction in child populations, but these studies did not span a
wide enough age range to consider age as a moderator, or they
simply did not test the Age ⫻ AS ⫻ NLE interaction (see
Lakdawalla, Hankin, & Mermelstein, 2007, for a review). Support
for the existence of an AS ⫻ NLE interaction was mixed. Five
studies reported significant interactions, consistent with the
diathesis–stress model (Dixon & Ahrens, 1992; Hankin et al.,
2001; Hilsman & Garber, 1995; Joiner, 2000; Robinson, Garber, &
Hilsman, 1995). Three studies reported that the expected interac-
tion was nonsignificant (Bennett & Bates, 1995; Hammen, Adrian,
& Hiroto, 1988; Spence, Sheffield, & Donovan, 2002). The re-
maining two studies yielded both significant and nonsignificant
results at different grade levels (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1986;
Panak & Garber, 1992). We cannot know why these results have
been so mixed, but we speculate that the neglect of age as a
moderator and/or the widespread use of the CASQ may be par-
tially responsible.
To summarize, the current study was designed to address four
specific questions. First, at what age do the factor structure and
internal consistency of children’s attributions suggest that they
have sufficient cross-situational consistency to be considered
stylelike? Second, at what age do the major dimensions of AS
become sufficiently correlated to represent a higher order AS
factor? Third, at what age do the major dimensions of AS become
sufficiently stable over time to be considered style- or traitlike?
Fourth, at what age does an AS ⫻ NLE interaction begin to predict
depressive symptoms?
Method
This study is a longitudinal, cohort sequential investigation of
the developmental origins of depressive cognitions in children. We
obtained longitudinal data about three age cohorts of children (in
Grades 2, 4, and 6 at the beginning of the study) over four waves
(with 1 year separating adjacent waves). Thus, Cohort 1 was
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
evaluated in Grades 2 through 5 (i.e., from ages 7 to 10), Cohort
2 was evaluated in Grades 4 through 7 (i.e., from ages 9 to 12), and
Cohort 3 was evaluated in Grades 6 through 9 (i.e., from ages 11
to 14; see Table 1). Active parental consent and child assent were
obtained for all participants at every wave of participation.
Participants
At the beginning of the study, we recruited children from five
elementary and two middle schools in a major southeastern met-
ropolitan area. In the first wave, 161 children were in Cohort 1
(mean age ⫽ 7.5 years, SD ⫽ 0.6), 176 were in Cohort 2 (mean
age ⫽ 9.5 years, SD ⫽ 0.6), and 178 were in Cohort 3 (mean
age ⫽ 11.5 years, SD ⫽ 0.6). The sample was ethnically diverse:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
65% African American, 28% Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, 1% Asian,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1% multiethnic, and 1% other. The children’s families were of
relatively low socioeconomic status, with an average family in-
come between $20,000 and $30,000 per year. They lived in neigh-
borhoods in which 27.3% of the families fell below the 2004
poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau. Re-
peated residential relocation was very common for our partici-
pants. Some children had as many as six different home addresses
and attended as many as five different schools over the course of
a single academic year. School principals reported that only 30%
to 40% of the students would finish an academic year in the school
where they started. Tracking our participants over the course of
this longitudinal study required repeated mailings and phone calls
to parents and extended family members (whose names had been
provided as contact people). We examined school records, con-
ducted Web searches, and consulted city and school databases to
track participants. Although we collected 92% of the data at
participating schools, we also provided cab fare for families to
come to the university when they moved to nonparticipating
school districts.
Each year we lost students, primarily because they moved out of
the school district. Each year we also added new students for
essentially the same reason: They had recently moved into the
district. This strategy resulted in approximately equal sample sizes
for Waves 1, 2, 3, and 4 of longitudinal data collection (Ns ⫽ 515,
518, 524, and 496, respectively; total N ⫽ 876). The majority of
the missing data fell into two general patterns: 26% were study
dropouts (i.e., present at the beginning but missing at the end), and
21% were joiners (i.e., missing at the beginning but present at the
end). We assessed the impact of missing data by comparing each
of the two missing-data groups with the participants who had
complete data on the variables for which all participants had data.
Table 1
Cohort Sequential Study Design: Participant Grade Levels and Mean Ages
Cohort 1
Wave
(school year) Grade Mean age
1. 2002–2003 2 7.5
2. 2003–2004 3 8.5
3. 2004–2005 4a 9.5
4. 2005–2006 5a 10.5
a b
Enables testing of cohort effects between Cohorts 1 and 2.
19
Out of 22 such comparisons, only ethnicity was statistically sig-
nificant at p ⬍ .05 (approximately as many as would be expected
by chance); follow-up comparisons revealed that joiners were
more likely to be Caucasian, compared with participants who had
complete data. Under the assumption that data were missing at
random (albeit not necessarily missing completely at random), we
tested all study hypotheses with full information maximum likeli-
hood methods, which allowed for the inclusion of participants with
partial data.
Over all cohorts and all waves, our sample was 45% male and
55% female. The participating children had an average of 2 sib-
lings (range ⫽ 0 to 13). Approximately 32% of the children had at
least one parent who was currently or previously divorced. Paren-
tal education ranged from less than an eighth-grade education to a
master’s degree, with the majority of parents reporting that they
had completed high school or passed the high school equivalency
test.
Measures
At each of the four waves, all participants completed two
measures of depressive symptoms, which were used to construct
(a) a composite index of self-reported depressive symptoms with
which to test the helplessness model of depression and (b) an index
of hopelessness depressive symptoms with which to test the hope-
lessness model. All participants also completed a measure of
NLEs, and one of two measures of AS (depending on the partic-
ipant’s age at the time of testing).
Depressive symptoms. The Child Depression Inventory (CDI;
Kovacs, 1985) is a 27-item self-report measure that assesses cog-
nitive, affective, and behavioral symptoms of depression in chil-
dren. Each item consists of three statements graded in order of
increasing severity from 0 to 2. Children select one sentence from
each group that best describes them for the past 2 weeks (e.g., “I
am sad once in a while,” “I am sad many times,” or “I am sad all
the time”). In the current study, the suicide item was dropped
because of concerns of school administrators. In nonclinical pop-
ulations, the CDI has relatively high levels of internal consistency,
test–retest reliability, and predictive, convergent, discriminant, and
construct validity (Cole & Jordan, 1995; Craighead, Smucker,
Craighead, & Ilardi, 1998; Smucker, Craighead, Craighead, &
Green, 1986; Timbremont, Braet, & Dreessen, 2004). Cronbach’s
alpha for the CDI in the current study was .80 in Wave 1, .84 in
Wave 2, .87 in Wave 3, and .87 in Wave 4.
The Centers for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale
(CES-D; Radloff, 1977, 1991) is a 20-item self-report scale de-
Cohort 2 Cohort 3
Grade Mean age Grade Mean age
a b
4 9.5 6 11.5
5a 10.5 7b 12.5
6b 11.5 8 13.5
7b 12.5 9 14.5
Enables testing of cohort effects between Cohorts 2 and 3.
 20 COLE ET AL.
signed to measure depressive symptomatology with a focus on
affective problems. Items reflect symptoms associated with de-
pression (e.g., irritability, sleep, and eating disturbances). Children
use a scale of 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most or all of the
time) to rate how frequently they experience each symptom. Rep-
resentative items include, “I did not feel like eating; I wasn’t very
hungry” and “I felt down and unhappy this week.” The CES-D has
been validated with child and adolescent populations and with
clinical and nonclinical populations (Radloff, 1977, 1991). The
measure has reasonably high split-half reliability (r ⫽ .85), ac-
ceptable construct validity, and moderate test–retest reliabilities in
adolescent samples (Radloff, 1977; Roberts, Andrews, Lewinsohn,
& Hops, 1990). Cronbach’s alpha for the CES-D in the current
study was .88 in Wave 1, .85 in Wave 2, .88 in Wave 3, and .89
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
in Wave 4.
From the CES-D and the CDI, we constructed two composite
variables. The first was an index of self-reported depressive symp-
toms, consisting of the sum of the standardized CES-D and CDI.
The correlation between the two original measures was .46. Esti-
mates of the reliability of this composite ranged from .89 to .93 for
the four waves of the study (formula from Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). The second variable was an index of self-reported symp-
toms of hopelessness depression. We extracted 13 items from the
CDI and 13 items from the CES-D that were consistent with the
symptoms that constitute Abramson et al.’s (1989) definition of
hopelessness depression. We rescaled all selected items to be on
the same metric (i.e., CDI item scores were multiplied by 1.5,
putting them on a 0 –3 scale similar to the CES-D item metric). We
created a score for each symptom by averaging the items that
represented that symptom (thus, all symptoms were also scored on
the same 0 –3 metric, despite the fact that more items accrued to
some symptoms than others). Finally, we summed the symptom
scores to form an overall hopelessness depression scale. Cron-
bach’s alphas for this scale were .74, .79, .85, and .84 in Waves 1,
2, 3, and 4, respectively.
NLEs. Work, Cowen, Parker, and Wyman (1990) developed a
Negative Life Events Checklist explicitly to assess both the kinds
of stressors often encountered by inner-city youth (e.g., seeing
someone get badly hurt, having a case worker visit their home,
being in a foster home, and having it not be safe around where they
live) and more conventional stressors (e.g., having their best friend
move away). The Negative Life Events Checklist consists of 30
negative, stressful child-related events. Respondents indicated (us-
ing a yes–no format) whether they had experienced these events in
the past 6 months. Respondents also rated the distress associated
with each event; however, we did not use these ratings because
they are confounded with depressed mood (Monroe & Simons,
1991). One-week test–retest reliability of this checklist was good
(r ⫽ .81).
Attributional style. Younger children (Grades 2– 6) received
the CASI (Conley et al., 2001). Older participants (Grades 7–9)
completed the Adolescent Cognitive Style Questionnaire (ACSQ;
Hankin & Abramson, 2002). Additionally, in seventh grade, 160
participants completed both measures, enabling us to examine their
comparability.
The CASI is a semistructured interview of AS in young chil-
dren. The current study used only the eight negative scenarios.
These scenarios described four social/interpersonal events (e.g.,
“You’re lining up for lunch and you get pushed”) and four aca-
demic/achievement events (e.g., “You do a math worksheet, but
you get a lot wrong”). Children provide a causal explanation for
each hypothetical event and then rate the degree to which their
explanation is internal, stable, and global on 7-point Likert scales.
With younger participants, interviewers used large visual aids,
depicting different degrees of internality, stability, or globality.
Unlike the original CASI, we added a 1 (low) to 7 (high) scale to
these visual aids to facilitate scoring. Three scale scores (internal-
ity, stability, and globality) consisted of the sum of the correspond-
ing questions over the eight scenarios. Consequently, scores on
each scale could range from 8 to 56. Additionally, an internality,
stability, globality composite and a stability and globality compos-
ite were constructed. Conley et al. (2001) reported internal con-
sistency for the CASI subscales ranging from .78 to .83 for
elementary school children. The CASI correlates with the CASQ,
but has stronger indices of internal consistency, especially for
negative events. Information pertaining to the internal consistency,
reliability, and factor structure of this measure in the current
sample is presented in the Results section.
The ACSQ (Hankin & Abramson, 2002) is an adolescent mea-
sure of the tendency to make internal– external, stable– unstable,
and global–specific inferences about the causes of hypothetical
events. (It also assesses negative inferences about the conse-
quences and implications for the self after experiencing such
events; however, these scales were not used in the current study.)
The original ACSQ consists of 12 hypothetical negative scenarios
(half social and half achievement) that are especially relevant to
adolescents (e.g., “You can’t get a date for a big dance you want
to go to”). As with the CASI, respondents provide a cause for the
event and then rate the internality, stability, and globality of the
attribution. All questions are rated with 7-point metrics (like the
CASI). Several subscales can be derived from this measure: inter-
nality, stability, and globality as well as the internality, stability,
globality composite and the stability, globality composite. We
dropped four items from the original ACSQ (two social and two
achievement) because they pertained to adolescents older than
most participants in the current study (e.g., “You don’t get ac-
cepted by any colleges,” “Your boss yells at you at work”). The
final version contained eight items (like the CASI): four about
social events and four about achievement events. On each scale,
scores could range from 8 to 56.
We assessed the comparability of the CASI and the ACSQ with
a subsample of 160 seventh graders who completed both measures.
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and 1-year test–
retest stability estimates for all subscales of both measures appear
in the Appendix. All comparisons between CASI and ACSQ
means (dependent t tests), between alpha reliabilities (Feldt, 1980),
and between stability correlations (Box’s test) for comparable
scales were nonsignificant ( ps ⬎ .10). Correlations between the
two measures were .40 for Internality, .41 for Stability, .56 for
Globality, .44 for the internality, stability, globality composite, and
.53 for the stability, globality composite. Furthermore, we con-
ducted a multitrait–multiinstrument confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), which followed Widaman’s (1985) procedures for
multitrait–multimethod analyses, to test whether items from the
two measures loaded onto the same set of factors. Item parcels
were allowed to load onto one trait factor (Internality, Stability, or
Globality) and one method factor (CASI or ACSQ). Trait factors
were allowed to correlate, whereas method factors were not (be-
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
cause Grayson & Marsh, 1994, have indicated that allowing
method factors to correlate can render such models underidenti-
fied). The model fit the data quite well: ␹2(225, N ⫽ 264) ⫽
351.18 ( p ⬍ .001), CFI ⫽ .93, RMSEA ⫽ .026 (confidence
interval ⫽ .020 –.031). All trait factor loadings were significant
( ps ⬍ .05), ranging in size from .30 to .80 (Mdn ⫽ .55), suggesting
that the CASI item parcels and the ACSQ item parcels represented
the same three underlying factors. On the basis of these analyses,
we regarded the CASI and the ACSQ to be congeneric measures,
representing the same underlying set of constructs.
Procedure
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The study measures were a subset of instruments from a larger
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
battery administered to students at school during two 45-min
sessions. To control for order effects, we counterbalanced the
questionnaire presentation. Research assistants (advanced under-
graduate and graduate students) were extensively trained before
data collection. In keeping with the developmental level of the
participants, we implemented slightly different data collection
procedures at different grade levels. In Grades 2 and 3, research
assistants read all questions to participants in one-on-one sessions,
allowing the children to respond verbally or use graphical visual
aids. In Grade 4, research assistants met with participants in small
groups (3– 4 students) and read all questions aloud to the partici-
pants who made their own responses (under close supervision) on
their own questionnaires. In Grades 5 and up, research assistants
read the questionnaires to participants in groups of 15 to 20
students. Participants recorded their responses on their own instru-
ments as research assistants circulated around the classroom an-
swering questions that arose. At all grade levels, we used lami-
nated response charts as visual aids. At the end of each session,
children received candy and decorative pencils for their participa-
tion.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Table 2 contains descriptive statistics for the study measures.
CASI and ACSQ means and standard deviations are similar to
those reported in previous studies (after adjusting for the omitted
items), despite differences in the sample demographics (Conley et
al., 2001; Hankin & Abramson, 2002). Our depression scores were
elevated approximately 0.5 SD relative to previous research with
nonreferred school samples (Cole, Hoffman, Tram, & Maxwell,
2000; Cole, Peeke, Martin, Truglio, & Seroczynski, 1998); how-
ever, these scores are comparable to several other studies that
included African American youths with relatively low socioeco-
nomic status (Fitzpatrick, 1993; Greening, Stoppelbein, Dhossche,
& Martin, 2005; Kovacs, 1981; Maikranz, Steele, & Forehand,
2003). We note, nevertheless, that Twenge and Nolen-Hoeksema’s
(2002) meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in CDI
scores as a function of socioeconomic status or Black–White
ethnicity.
We tested mean differences between Black and White partici-
pants for all study variables at all four waves in all three cohorts.
None of the variables consistently revealed mean differences
across all 12 iterations of this test. Two variables, however, re-
21
vealed significant ethnic differences 5 out of 12 times. Black
participants tended to have slightly higher scores on the measure of
NLEs and slightly lower scores on the internal, stable, global
composite, compared with White participants.
Given the study design, we were able to test for cohort effects
(i.e., mean differences between cohorts at the same grade level).
Multivariate analyses of variance revealed no cohort differences at
any of the four grade levels (at an alpha level of .05/4). Out of 32
univariate comparisons, only 4 were large enough to meet Cohen’s
criterion for a small effect size. We concluded that cohort differ-
ences were negligible.
Goal 1: Cross-Situational Consistency
Our first goal was to examine age-related changes in the degree
to which children’s attributions were consistent across the eight
scenarios assessed in the CASI and the ACSQ. We took two
approaches to this question. First, we examined the internal con-
sistency (Cronbach’s alphas) of the AS subscales and composites
as a function of cohort and wave (see Table 2). For all three
subscales of AS, alphas were of moderate size (and much larger
than has been reported for the CASQ), ranging from .65 to .80 for
internality, from .67 to .82 for stability, and from .71 to .86 for
globality. Alphas for the two composites were even larger, ranging
from .79 to .89 for the stable, global composite and from .78 to .89
for the internal, stable, global composite. We used Feldt’s (1980)
method for comparing alphas from dependent samples to test for
within-cohort, age-related increases. As indicated by the super-
scripts in Table 2, alphas for every subscale and composite showed
significant increases across some of the waves. These increases
were most prevalent in Cohort 1 (Grades 2–5), but significant
increases were also evident in the older cohorts.
Next, we examined age differences in the factor structure un-
derlying the subscales and composites that derive from our AS
measures. Specifically, we conducted three separate CFAs. The
first was a three-factor CFA, in which we examined 24 items (8
internality, 8 stability, 8 globality). The second was a one-factor
CFA, in which we examined 8 hopelessness composite items (i.e.,
the sum of stability and globality ratings for each of the 8 scenar-
ios). The third was also a one-factor CFA, in which we examined
8 helplessness composite items (i.e., the sum of internality, stabil-
ity, and globality ratings for each of the 8 scenarios). In each
analysis, we reduced item-level nuisance covariance, by convert-
ing each set of 8 items into four 2-item packets. Each packet
contained one social and one achievement scenario, selected ran-
domly. We repeated all analyses for every grade level, using full
information maximum likelihood estimation (AMOS, Version 6).
In the first CFA, each of 12 packets (4 internality, 4 stability, 4
globality) loaded onto exactly one of three oblique latent variables
(internality, stability, and globality). At every grade level, the
model fit the data well. As shown at the bottom of Table 3, the
chi-square was frequently significant; however, with relatively
large sample sizes, very small discrepancies between the model
and the data often reach statistical significance. Alternative
goodness-of-fit indices revealed that these discrepancies were in-
deed quite small. The root mean square errors of approximation
(RMSEA) were well below the recommended .06 cutoff. The
comparative fit index (CFI) and the incremental fit index were all
above .90 for every cohort, indicating that the model explained a
 22 COLE ET AL.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alphas by Wave and Cohort

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

Measure M SD ␣ M SD ␣ M SD ␣

Wave 1
Internality 34.63 10.44 .66a 35.18 9.98 .69 35.13 9.72 .68
Stability 28.07a 11.23 .75 26.21 9.32 .70 29.91 9.75 .75a
Globality 28.58a 10.45 .71a 23.61 9.84 .76 28.42 10.35 .74
SG 56.64a 18.94 .81a 49.82a 16.38 .82a 58.33 17.51 .79a
ISG 91.25a 24.49 .81a 85.12a 22.08 .83a 93.46 22.67 .81
CDI 10.88a 6.22 .73a 8.61a,b 6.03 .78a 9.46 6.38 .82a
CES-D 22.09a 9.95 .87 17.07a 10.80 .88 15.26a,b 10.92 .86
NLE 12.44a 5.33 — 10.44a 4.96 — 9.41a 4.87 —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Wave 2
Internality 32.49 9.96 .65a 33.25 10.11 .72 34.17a 9.97 .70
Stability 24.78b 9.54 .67a 26.44 9.28 .75 25.82 9.61 .79a
Globality 23.72b,c 10.88 .79b,c 25.22 10.33 .80 23.37a 9.08 .76
SG 48.49b 18.19 .82a 51.79b 17.44 .84 49.26a 16.62 .85b
ISG 80.98b 23.36 .83 85.30b 22.62 .83a 83.49 23.20 .86
CDI 9.00b 6.20 .78a 9.15a 7.83 .87b 9.09 7.09 .86a,b
CES-D 18.25b 10.85 .83 13.25b 10.47 .83 15.44a,b 11.19 .86
NLE 11.73a 5.30 — 8.45b 5.19 — 8.09b 4.85 —

Wave 3
Internality 33.52 10.07 .70a,b 33.27 10.29 .76 35.08a,b 9.29 .66a
Stability 26.57b 9.91 .73a 27.51 9.31 .75 25.59 9.80 .81a
Globality 22.10b 9.65 .76b 25.59 10.42 .81 22.18b 8.73 .77
SG 46.69b 16.87 .81a 53.07b 17.02 .84a 47.92b 16.87 .87b
ISG 82.29b 20.38 .78a 86.31b 23.90 .86a 82.57 20.79 .83
CDI 8.17b 6.74 .84a,b 8.01b,c 7.48 .89b 9.50 7.71 .89b
CES-D 15.70c 11.04 .87 13.08b 10.56 .87 14.60a 11.12 .87
NLE 9.56b 4.96 — 8.52b,c 5.04 — 7.31b,c 4.65 —

Wave 4
Internality 34.35 11.66 .80b 32.03 10.36 .78 36.85b 10.13 .79b
Stability 26.94b 10.42 .82b 23.53 8.52 .80 27.47 10.18 .87b
Globality 24.49c 11.49 .86c 21.87 8.64 .82 23.06a,b 8.39 .77
SG 51.49b 19.67 .89b 45.42 16.08 .89b 51.01a,b 16.87 .90b
ISG 85.57a,b 26.76 .89b 77.70 23.53 .90b 87.66 21.14 .86
CDI 8.33b 7.31 .87b 7.18c 6.77 .88b 9.51 7.17 .87a,b
CES-D 16.55b,c 11.21 .86 12.69b 9.79 .88 18.66b 11.12 .88
NLE 8.26c 5.19 — 6.47d 3.94 — 6.85c 4.26 —

Note. Pairs of values with different subscripts represent significant developmental (i.e., cross-wave, within-cohort) differences. Internality, Stability, and
Globality are subscales of the Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire or the Adolescent Cognitive Style Questionnaire; SG ⫽ stable, global
(hopelessness) composite; ISG ⫽ internal, stable, global (helplessness) composite; CDI ⫽ Children’s Depression Inventory; CES-D ⫽ Center for
Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; NLE ⫽ negative life event.

large proportion of the data. Estimates of all factor loadings and
correlations appear in Table 3. Large loadings onto the same
underlying factor suggest that children’s attributional responses to
the diverse situational scenarios have reasonable convergent va-
lidity. Factor loadings ranged in size from .52 to .82 (all were
statistically significant at p ⬍ .001). The median loadings were .62
for internality, .67 for stability, and .69 for globality. Most devel-
opmental increases in the factor loadings were nonsignificant.
In the second CFA, the four hopelessness packets all loaded
onto one common factor. At every grade level, the model fit the
data well. As shown in Table 4, the chi-square was occasionally
significant; however, the alternative goodness-of-fit indices indi-
cated that discrepancies between the model and the data were
small. Factor loadings (Table 4) ranged from .70 to .86 (all were
statistically significant at p ⬍ .001). Developmental increases in
the factor loadings were nonsignificant.
The third CFA was the same as the second except that helpless-
ness packets replaced the hopelessness packets as the units of
analysis. At every grade level, the model fit the data well. As
shown in Table 4, the chi-square was occasionally significant;
however, the alternative goodness-of-fit indices indicated that dis-
crepancies between the model and the data were small. Factor
loadings (Table 4) ranged from .66 to .87 (all ps ⬍ .001). Almost
all developmental increases in the factor loadings were nonsignif-
icant.
The results of all three CFAs were quite similar. At every wave
for every cohort, convergent validity among the item packets was
quite good. Whether we looked at specific internality, stability, and
globality attributional dimensions or more general hopelessness
and helplessness composites, the results suggest that participants’
attributions were relatively consistent across diverse sets of sce-
narios.
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE 23

Table 3
Goodness-of-Fit Indices and Standardized Parameter Estimates From a Three-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis Repeated for
Each Grade

Grade

Factor/variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Factor loadings
Internality
Packet 1 .52 .58 .57 .73 .62 .69 .62 .68
Packet 2 .58 .63 .61 .76 .62 .68 .57 .76
Packet 3 .56 .60 .66 .57 .69 .62 .57 .69
Packet 4 .56 .58 .59 .64 .59 .69 .60 .76
Stability
Packet 1 .64 .60 .63 .68 .70 .73 .74 .82
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Packet 2 .66 .57 .61 .73 .67 .69 .72 .82

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Packet 3 .67 .64 .63 .72 .66 .66 .74 .80

Packet 4 .63 .67 .65 .69 .65 .67 .77 .82
Globality
Packet 1 .62 .69 .68 .70 .72 .66 .73 .65
Packet 2 .62 .70 .69 .78 .72 .69 .60 .71
Packet 3 .59 .68 .70 .74 .69 .67 .65 .69
Packet 4 .61 .70 .66 .71 .67 .69 .77 .74

Factor correlations
Int–Sta .44 .40 .24 .56 .62 .76 .29 .23
Sta–Glo .72 .78 .65 .74 .66 .84 .71 .74
Int–Glo .46 .41 .33 .30 .45 .55 .21 .17

Fit indices
␹2(51) 63.70 93.11* 85.33* 85.79* 92.70* 113.51* 110.14* 98.95*
RMSEA 0.008 0.025 0.022 0.022 0.025 0.032 0.031 0.027
CFI 0.99 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.90 0.90
IFI 0.99 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.91 0.91

Note. All factor loadings were significant at p ⬍ .001. Int ⫽ internality; Sta ⫽ stability; Glo ⫽ globality; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of
approximation; CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; IFI ⫽ incremental fit index.
*
p ⬍ .05.

Goal 2: Developmental Changes in the Nature of AS
Our second goal was to examine age-related changes in the
nature of AS. Toward this end, we began with a multiwave–
multicohort CFA model (see Figure 1). At each wave, subscale
scores for internality, stability, and globality loaded onto a
wave-specific, general AS factor (see Table 5). These loadings
essentially characterize the nature of the general AS factor at
each wave. Across waves, each subscale also loaded onto a
specific factor (internality, stability, or globality) in much the
same manner as measures load onto method factors in
multitrait–multimethod designs (Kenny & Zautra, 2001; Wida-
man, 1985). Indeed, Kenny and Zautra (2001) recommended
multitrait–multimethod analyses such as this as a preliminary
step prior to testing trait–state models, as we do in the next
section. As shown in Figure 1, preliminary analyses revealed
that the specific factor for internality was unrelated to those for
stability and globality, which were strongly correlated with each
other. All three cohorts were tested simultaneously with a multigroup
approach. Within each cohort, unstandardized factor loadings for
specific subscales did not differ from their cross-wave counterparts
and were therefore set to be equal to one another across waves. No
equality constraints were imposed across cohorts.
This model fit the data well. The chi-square was statistically
significant, ␹2(162, N ⫽ 876) ⫽ 233.07, p ⬍ .001; however, the
RMSEA was low (.022), and the alternative fit indices were good
(CFI ⫽ .94, incremental fit index ⫽ .94). Table 5 reveals that
internality loadings onto the AS general factor ranged from .39 to .56
(Mdn ⫽ .44), stability loadings ranged from .55 to .98 (Mdn ⫽ .83),
and globality loadings ranged from .56 to .76 (Mdn ⫽ .62). Internality
and globality loadings did not vary significantly from cohort to cohort
( ps ⬎ .05), but stability loadings did, ⌬␹2(2, N ⫽ 876) ⫽ 13.43, p ⬍
.001. Follow-up pairwise comparisons revealed that the stability load-
ings increased from Cohort 1 to Cohort 3 ( p ⬍ .001) and from Cohort
2 to Cohort 3 ( p ⬍ .01). The increase from Cohort 1 to Cohort 2 was
significant only at the .10 level. Another way of examining these
results is through within-group comparisons. In Cohort 1, the loadings
of internal, stable, and global were not significantly different from one
another ( p ⬎ .10). This same comparison was significant, however,
for both Cohort 2, ⌬␹2(2, N ⫽ 876) ⫽ 8.59, p ⬍ .015, and Cohort 3,
⌬␹2(2, N ⫽ 876) ⫽ 36.43, p ⬍ .001. In both cases, the loading for
stability was significantly higher than the loadings for internality and
globality. To summarize, the AS factor reflected internality, stability,
and globality almost equally in our youngest cohort (ages 7.5–10.5).
In our older two cohorts, however, the nature of the AS factor
changed to reflect significantly more stability than internality or
globality (ages 9.5–12.5 and ages 11.5–14.5).
Goal 3: The Longitudinal Structure of AS
Our third goal was to examine age-related changes in the tem-
poral structure of helplessness and hopelessness AS. First, we
 24 COLE ET AL.

Table 4
Goodness-of-Fit Indices and Standardized Factor Loadings From Two Single-Factor CFAs (Hopelessness and Helplessness) Repeated
at Every Grade Level

Grade

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CFA of hopelessness packets

Loadings
Packet 1 .71 .74 .75 .76 .76 .70 .80 .86
Packet 2 .75 .70 .78 .83 .77 .83 .76 .83
Packet 3 .72 .73 .72 .81 .76 .80 .80 .85
Packet 4 .71 .77 .71 .78 .73 .77 .86 .84
Fit indices
␹2(2) 0.87 2.34 5.38 4.82 0.04 1.75 10.96* 1.52
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

RMSEA 0.000 0.014 0.044 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.071 0.000

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

CFI 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

IFI 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

CFA of helplessness packets

Loadings
Packet 1 .66 .76 .68 .77 .81 .77 .75 .75
Packet 2 .74 .74 .78 .87 .80 .84 .78 .82
Packet 3 .77 .71 .77 .79 .79 .71 .77 .77
Packet 4 .74 .81 .73 .77 .78 .79 .83 .86
Fit indices
␹2(2) 3.36 0.75 5.40 1.02 4.27 2.69 8.24* 0.01
RMSEA 0.028 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.036 0.020 0.060 0.000
CFI 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
IFI 0.99 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.01

Note. All factor loadings were significant at p ⬍ .001. CFAs ⫽ confirmatory factor analyses; RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; CFI ⫽
comparative fit index; IFI ⫽ incremental fit index.
*
p ⬍ .05.

describe the helplessness analyses. As shown in Figure 2, we used
Cole et al.’s (2005) trait–state– occasion model to partition AS into
a time-invariant factor (labeled “Trait” in Figure 2) and a set of
time-varying occasion factors (Occ 1 through Occ 4). At each of
four waves, four packets (pit, with subscripts i and t signifying the
different packets and waves, respectively) loaded onto a single AS
factor. Each packet consisted of the internality, stability, and
globality ratings for one social and one achievement scenario
(selected randomly). Covariation among these four AS factors is a
function of (a) the single time-invariant trait factor and (b) the
auto-regressive process connecting the four occasion factors. Trait
factor loadings (by definition) were constrained to be equal (Cole
et al., 2005). Because the auto-regressive beta weights were not
significantly different within cohort, we constrained them to en-

General General General General

AS factor AS factor AS factor AS factor
(wave 1) (wave 2) (wave 3) (wave 4)

Int 1 Sta 1 Glo 1 Int 2 Sta 2 Glo 2 Int 3 Sta 3 Glo 3 Int 4 Sta 4 Glo 4

Internality Stability Globality

Figure 1. Multicohort confirmatory factor analysis to examine longitudinal changes in the structure of the
general attributional style (AS) factor. Int ⫽ internality; Sta ⫽ stability; Glo ⫽ globality.
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE 25

Table 5
Factor Loadings of Internality, Stability, and Globality Onto a General AS Factor and a Specific Factor for Each of Three Cohorts
in a Longitudinal SEM Depicted in Figure 1

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3

General Specific General Specific General Specific

Variable AS factor factor AS factor factor AS factor factor

Wave A
Internal .44 .33 .53 .45 .42 .41
Stable .55 .42 .78 .05 .88 .02
Global .61 .44 .66 .35 .57 .31
Wave B
Internal .47 .35 .54 .46 .44 .43
Stable .63 .47 .81 .05 .98 .02
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Global .59 .42 .64 .34 .63 .34

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Wave C
Internal .44 .33 .56 .47 .41 .40
Stable .58 .43 .85 .05 .94 .02
Global .62 .45 .61 .33 .67 .37
Wave D
Internal .42 .32 .56 .47 .39 .38
Stable .64 .48 .92 .06 .90 .02
Global .56 .40 .76 .41 .68 .37

Note. AS ⫽ attributional style; SEM ⫽ structural equation model.

hance the fidelity of parameter estimation. Because we randomly
placed items into packets, we also constrained packet factor load-
ings to be equal. We tested this model for all three of our cohorts
simultaneously in a single multigroup analysis. First, we describe
the helplessness analyses. As shown in Figure 2, we used Cole et
al.’s (2005) trait–state– occasion model to partition AS into a
time-invariant factor (labeled Trait in Figure 2) and a time-varying
occasion (Occ in Figure 2) factor. At each of four waves, four
packets (p; with numbers for different packets at the different
waves in Figure 2) loaded onto a single AS factor.

TSO model Trait

Occ 1 Occ 2 Occ 3 Occ 4

AS1 AS2 AS3 AS4

p11 p21 p31 p41 p12 p222 p32 p42 p13 p223 p33 p43 p14 p224 p34 p44

Figure 2. Trait–state– occasion (TSO) model for the examination of the longitudinal structure of attributional
style (AS) in three cohorts. Occ 1– 4 ⫽ occasion factor for Waves 1– 4; p ⫽ packet.
 26 COLE ET AL.

Because of the cross-wave equality of parameter estimates Table 6

within cohort, all developmental effects derive from cross-cohort Multiple Regression Longitudinal Tests of the Diathesis–Stress
comparisons. Our primary focus was on the amount of AS variance Model
in each cohort that could be attributed to a time-invariant trait
factor. In Cohort 1, we found no evidence of any reliable trait Predictor B SE(B) ␤ t p
factor variance. The amount of trait variance was not significantly Grades 2 to 3
different from zero. Indeed, completely eliminating the trait factor Prior depression .313 .091 .294 3.441 .001
from Cohort 1 did not perturb the fit of the model, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ NLE .050 .012 .305 4.280 .001
876) ⫽ 1.52, p ⬎ .20. In Cohorts 2 and 3, substantial and reliable AS .003 .003 .076 0.857 .391
AS ⫻ NLE .001 .001 .158 1.860 .063
amounts of the AS variance were attributable to the trait factor. In
Cohort 2, 38% of the variance was trait variance (␴2Trait ⫽ 18.29); Grades 3 to 4
furthermore, a model without an AS trait factor fit the data sig- Prior depression .409 .076 .410 5.402 .001
nificantly worse than the model with such a factor, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ NLE .051 .010 .299 5.210 .001
876) ⫽ 19.58, p ⬍ .001. In Cohort 3, 44% of the variance was due AS ⫺.004 .003 ⫺.102 ⫺1.239 .215
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

AS ⫻ NLE .000 .001 .034 0.447 .655

to the trait (␴2Trait ⫽ 15.16), and again a model without a trait
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

factor fit the data worse, ⌬␹2(1, N ⫽ 876) ⫽ 6.59, p ⬍ .01. Grades 4 to 5
Between Cohorts 2 and 3, the change in the amount of variance Prior depression .469 .062 .444 7.504 .001
attributable to the trait factor was not significant ( p ⬎ .20). NLE .056 .010 .310 5.669 .001
AS .004 .003 .096 1.468 .096
Very similar results emerged when we conducted comparable AS ⫻ NLE .002 .001 .106 2.017 .050
tests of hopelessness AS. The multigroup model fit the data quite
well, ␹2(306) ⫽ 417.43, p ⬍ .001; CFI ⫽ .97, TLI ⫽ .95, NFI ⫽ Grades 5 to 6
.96, RMSEA ⫽ .020. In Cohort 1, the amount of trait variance was Prior depression .583 .062 .584 9.407 .001
NLE .047 .010 .259 4.561 .001
not significantly different from zero. As before, eliminating the AS .003 .003 .091 0.951 .342
trait factor from Cohort 1 did not perturb the fit of the model, AS ⫻ NLE .000 .001 .008 0.079 .937
⌬␹2(1) ⬃ 0. In Cohorts 2 and 3, the amount of the hopelessness AS
variance attributable to the trait factor was substantial and reliable. Grades 6 to 7
Prior depression .593 .054 .575 11.002 .001
In Cohort 2, 38% of the variance was trait variance (␴2Trait ⫽
NLE .044 .010 .214 4.211 .001
9.37), and a model without a trait factor fit the data poorly, AS ⫺.003 .002 ⫺.074 ⫺1.413 .158
⌬␹2(1) ⫽ 22.15, p ⬍ .001. In Cohort 3, 51% of the variance was AS ⫻ NLE .001 .000 .081 1.574 .116
due to trait (␴2Trait ⫽ 7.71), and again a model without a trait
factor fit the data poorly, ⌬␹2(1) ⫽ 16.53, p ⬍ .001. Between Grades 7 to 8
Prior depression .608 .068 .620 8.979 .001
Cohorts 2 and 3, the change in the amount of trait variance was not NLE .051 .014 .264 3.758 .001
significant ( p ⬎ .20). AS ⫺.001 .003 ⫺.014 ⫺0.203 .839
For the helplessness and hopelessness types of AS, the results AS ⫻ NLE ⫺.001 .001 ⫺.145 ⫺1.894 .058
were quite similar. Our youngest cohort (ages 7.5–10.5 years old)
Grades 8 to 9
provided no evidence of a time-invariant, traitlike attributional Prior depression .716 .081 .688 8.836 .001
style factor. In our two older cohorts (ages 9.5–12.5 and ages NLE .022 .018 .099 1.252 .211
11.5–14.5), however, a traitlike AS factor was clearly evident, AS .004 .004 .088 1.140 .254
accounting for 38% to 51% of the variance in child and adolescent AS ⫻ NLE .003 .001 .286 3.730 .001
attributions.
Note. AS ⫽ attributional style; NLE ⫽ negative life event.

Goal 4: Testing the Diathesis–Stress Interaction

Our final goal was to examine developmental differences in the
role of AS as a cognitive diathesis. To address these questions, we
used AMOS to test a series of longitudinal path analytic models. In
these models, depression at time t ⫹ 1 was regressed onto depres-
sion at time t, AS at time t, NLEs that occurred between time t and
time t ⫹ 1, and the interaction between AS and NLE. In one set of
analyses, the helplessness composite served as the measure of AS,
and the composite of CDI and CES-D served as the index of
depressive symptoms. In a second set of analyses, the hopelessness
composite constituted the measure of AS, and our hopelessness
depression variable served as the index of depressive symptoms.
These two analyses were repeated for every possible 1-year inter-
val: Grades 2–3, 3– 4, 4 –5, 5– 6, 6 –7, 7– 8, and 8 –9). We protected
the familywise error rate by setting alpha at .05/14 ⫽ .003.
The first set of regression results (using the helplessness com-
posite and the composite index of depression) appear in Table 6. In
every analysis, prior depression scores predicted depression scores
1 year later. This relation was significant at p ⬍ .001 for every
interval. NLE was also significant at the .001 level at every
interval except for the last, when the effect of NLE was moderated
by AS. In every instance, more NLEs were associated with higher
depression scores. The helplessness AS composite was not signif-
icantly related to depression scores in any analysis. The AS ⫻
NLE interaction emerged as significant only for the oldest partic-
ipants. Only in the time interval between Grades 8 and 9 (ages 12.5
to 13.5 years old) did AS moderate the effect of NLE on depres-
sion scores. This interaction was in the expected direction as
shown in Figure 3. For participants with relatively healthy ASs, the
relation of NLE to depression was flat (or slightly negative). For
participants with relatively depressive ASs, NLE scores were
positively related to depression scores; indeed, a 1 SD increase in
NLE scores corresponded with approximately a .40 SD increase in
depression scores. Simple slope analyses showed that the NLE
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
+1 SD
Depression scores
high AS
low AS
Mean
-1 SD
-1 SD Mean +1 SD
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Negative Life Events (NLE)
Figure 3. Interaction between helplessness attributional style (AS) and
negative life events (NLEs) predicting Grade 9 depression scores, control-
ling for Grade 8 depression scores.
score was significantly associated with depression scores when AS
was 1 SD above the mean (␤ ⫽ .09, p ⬍ .001), whereas the relation
was nonsignificant when AS scores were 1 SD below the mean
(␤ ⫽ ⫺.04, p ⬎ .12).
We repeated this pattern of analyses, substituting the hopeless-
ness composite for AS and our index of hopelessness depression
for the outcome variable. Results were essentially the same as
those reported earlier, except that they were weaker—possibly
because our indices of hopeless AS and depression were shorter
than the original measures.1
Discussion
Four major findings pertaining to the development of depressive
AS emerged from this investigation. First, children’s attributions
about negative events were relatively consistent across scenarios,
showing moderately strong internal consistency and convergent
validity even as young as 7 years of age. Second, the cross-
sectional structure of AS changed with development; as age in-
creased, AS began to reflect stability more than internality and
globality. Third, the longitudinal structure of children’s attribu-
tions also changed with development; a time-invariant or traitlike
component of AS was not evident when our participants were
young but emerged as they grew older. Fourth, no evidence
emerged that AS serves as a cognitive diathesis for the emergence
of depressive symptoms between Grades 2 and 8; only between
Grades 8 and 9 did AS and NLE begin to interact to predict change
in depressive symptoms. Taken together, these findings suggest
that during middle childhood, the meaning of children’s attribu-
tions may be changing. Not until age 14 or 15 does AS appear to
constitute a stable cognitive diathesis for depression. Each of these
findings has implications for AS models of depression in youth.
Our first finding was that children’s attributions about diverse
social and academic events were moderately consistent. Even as
young as 7 years of age, children’s causal explanations for quali-
tatively different negative events reflected similar levels of inter-
nality, stability, and globality. These results show acceptable levels
of internal consistency, as has previous work with the CASI
27
(Conley et al., 2001) and the ACSQ (Hankin & Abramson, 2002),
but quite unlike studies that used the CASQ (see Gladstone &
Kaslow, 1995). We suggest that the low internal consistency of the
CASQ reveals more about the psychometrics of that instrument
than about the consistency of children’s attributions per se. The
fact that the CASI and ACSQ both manifest good internal consis-
tency and factorial integrity suggests that children’s attributions
may be more consistent and thematic than previous research has
led us to believe. We hasten to note, however, that attributional
consistency within age or grade level tells us nothing about the
stability of children’s attributions over time. If children’s under-
standing of causal attributions changes with development (as sug-
gested by Fincham & Cain, 1986), then children’s responses may
exhibit internal consistency within time without necessarily exhib-
iting consistency across time.
Our second finding was that the cross-sectional structure of AS
changed with development. In our youngest cohort (ages 7.5–
10.5), AS reflected internality, stability, and globality almost
equally. At older ages, however, AS began to reflect stability more
than internality and globality. In other words, the very structure of
children’s attributions changed over the course of middle child-
hood and early adolescence, possibly as a function of children’s
level of cognitive development (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Fincham
& Cain, 1986; Nicholls & Miller, 1984; Rholes & Ruble, 1984).
The enhanced position of stability as part of AS may reflect the
later development of a relatively mature fixed entity conception of
stable personal characteristics, such as traits and abilities. It may
also reflect the capacity of older children to generalize over time.
Whatever the reason for this change, however, the implications are
profound. When the structure of a construct like AS changes, its
correlations with other constructs, with which it is theoretically
embedded, change as well. In other words, we should expect the
correlates of AS to change over the course of development.
Our third finding was that the longitudinal structure of chil-
dren’s attributions also changed with development. In our young-
est cohort, a time-invariant, or traitlike, component of AS was not
evident. In our older two cohorts, however, such a stable compo-
nent was clearly evident. That is, individual differences in chil-
dren’s attributions became more stylelike with age. Longitudinal
studies of depression in children have revealed disattenuated,
12-month stability correlations that ranged from .50 to .80 (Cole et
al., 1998; Devine, Kempton, & Forehand, 1994; Holsen, Kraft, &
Vitterso, 2000; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1986, 1992; Sheeber,
Hops, Alpert, Davis, & Andrews, 1997; Smucker et al., 1986). We
expected the underlying cognitive diathesis of comparable stabil-
ity. In the current study, however, a traitlike component of AS was
1
To assess the potential moderating effects of race on our findings, we reran
all key analyses looking for potential interactions with race. In one set of
analyses, we reran the trait–state– occasion structural equation models, using
race as a blocking factor. We then examined race differences in the stability
coefficient, using a model comparison procedure. These comparisons were
nonsignificant in all three cohorts. In another set of analyses, we examined the
moderating effects of race on the AS ⫻ Stress interaction. That is, we
examined the effect of the AS ⫻ Stress ⫻ Race interaction on depression for
all measures of AS, at every time, and for all three cohorts. The higher order
AS ⫻ Stress ⫻ Race interaction was never significant. These results suggest
that race does not moderate our results and that our results likely do generalize
across ethnicities.
 28 COLE ET AL.
not evident until late middle childhood and early adolescence. If
substantial temporal stability is a criterion for something to be
stylelike, then we may need to focus our attention on older children
or adolescents to find evidence of a depressive AS.
Our fourth finding pertained to the role of AS as a cognitive
diathesis for depression. Not until our participants reached eighth
or ninth grade (14 –15 years old) did depressive AS begin to
moderate the relation between NLEs and depressive symptoms.
Essentially no longitudinal support emerged supporting the
diathesis–stress hypothesis for younger participants. After control-
ling for prior levels of self-reported depressive symptoms, every
test of an interaction between AS and NLEs was nonsignificant,
except for the one at our oldest time interval. We and others have
previously argued that a high degree of cognitive development
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
is necessary before children can truly understand what it means
for a cause to be internal, stable, and global (Abela, 2001;
Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1992; Turner & Cole, 1994). Whether
such development is marked by the onset of formal operations, by
the development of a stable-trait conceptualization of ability, or by
the capacity for the integration of multiple dimensions of infor-
mation, such sophistication does not typically emerge much before
the age of 12. Prior to this level of maturity, we suggest that what
children mean when they answer questions about internality, glob-
ality, and stability may not correspond to the constructs imbedded
in attributional models of depression.
Nevertheless, three longitudinal studies have found support for
an AS ⫻ NLE interaction in youths. In one study, Dixon and
Ahrens (1992) examined the interaction of stable, global AS with
both daily and long-term NLEs in a sample of 84 children who
were 9 to 12 years old. The interaction predicted change in
self-reported depression symptoms over the course of a potentially
stressful event (a session of summer camp). In a second study,
Robinson et al. (1995) evaluated internal, stable, global AS in a
sample of 371 children at age 12, prior to their transition from sixth
to seventh grade. AS moderated the effect of stressful life events
on depressive symptoms after the change in grade level, even after
controlling for prior levels of depression. The third supportive
longitudinal study is Hilsman and Garber’s (1995) brief longitu-
dinal examination of 439 fifth and sixth graders, before and after
a stressful event (receiving low grades). AS interacted with the
stressful event to predict increases in depressive symptoms 5 days
later, controlling for prior levels of depressive symptoms.
Two points should be considered when evaluating these
studies. First, at least four other longitudinal studies found
either no support or only partial support of the diathesis–stress
interaction in children (Bennett & Bates, 1995; Hammen et al.,
1988; Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1986; Panak & Garber, 1992).
Second, all three of the supportive studies used the problematic
CASQ as a measure of AS. We speculate that the on-again off-
again support for the AS ⫻ NLE interaction in children is the
result of three things: (a) children’s answers to questions about
causal attributions do not necessarily reflect the construct embed-
ded in attributional models of depression, (b) children’s attribu-
tions are not yet particularly stylelike and may not constitute a
diathesis for depression in the manner anticipated by theory, and
(c) the CASQ is a relatively unreliable measure of children’s
causal attributions.
Several shortcomings and caveats about the current study sug-
gest avenues for future research. First, the current study focused on
nonreferred children and self-reported depressive symptoms, not
clinic-referred youths and clinically diagnosed depression. Both
strategies have their strengths and their weaknesses, and one
approach should be used to complement the other. Replication of
the current study with more seriously depressed youth would be a
valuable contribution to the literature. Second, our measure of
NLEs was selected because it was particularly sensitive to the
hardships often experienced by inner-city youths; nevertheless, it
was a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, subject to the kinds of
response biases sometimes associated with such measures. An-
other valuable contribution would be research that used interview-
based assessments of NLEs, such as the Life Events and Difficul-
ties Schedule (Brown & Harris, 1978) or the Life Events Interview
for Adolescents (Garber & Robinson, 1997). Third, our measure of
life events focused only on NLEs. Some evidence suggests that
external, unstable, specific attributions about positive events are
part of a depressive AS (Gladstone & Kaslow, 1995). Future
research should examine the emergence of AS as it pertains to
positive events. Fourth, our study concentrated on children from
Grades 2 through 9. Extension of this work across the life span
could reveal other developmental changes in the meaning of causal
attributions and the nature of AS. Fifth, it is possible that not all
people readily engage in attributional searches (Haaga et al., 1995;
cf. Chamberlain, Haaga, Thorndike, & Ahrens, 2004). If this is
true, then individual differences in this meta-trait may also emerge
over the course of development, and a useful avenue for future
research would be to examine the role of depressive attributions
specifically among those youths who show evidence of having
stylelike attributions.
In conclusion, the current study suggests that the nature of AS
changes qualitatively over the course of middle childhood and
early adolescence. Although evidence of cross-situational consis-
tency is moderately strong across this age range, evidence of
cross-time stability (or the traitlike nature of the construct) in-
creases with age. Some evidence suggests that individual differ-
ences in children’s tendency to attribute negative events to stable
causes becomes a more salient part of one’s AS as children grow
older. Not until age 14 or 15 did AS begin to interact with NLEs
to predict depressive symptoms longitudinally.
Taken together, these findings suggest either that attributional
models of depression must be substantially modified when they are
applied to children or that qualitatively different cognitive models
are needed to explain depression in childhood. We advocate the
latter. In particular, we suggest that a mediational (not a modera-
tional) model pertains better in youth (Cole & Turner, 1993; Tuner
& Cole, 1994). According to this model, several things are true.
First, depressive cognitive styles are still under construction in
youth. Second, such cognitions are strongly influenced by repeti-
tive or chronic, self-focused, negative socioenvironmental events.
Third, such cognitions do not begin to show stylelike characteris-
tics until early adolescence. Fourth, such cognitions do not begin
to serve as stable, pre-existing diatheses for depression (moderat-
ing the effects of NLEs) until adolescence. Prior to this time, such
cognitions are better conceptualized as mediators, not moderators,
of the relation between NLEs and depression. The current findings
are consistent with several of these principles and are inconsistent
with the casual application of adult-based AS models to childhood
depression. Nevertheless, more research is needed to determine
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
which kinds of cognitive mediators are most relevant to the emer-
gence of depression at different ages or developmental levels.
References
Abela, J. (2001). The hopelessness theory of depression: A test of the
diathesis–stress and causal mediation components in third and seventh
grade children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 241–254.
Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness
depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Re-
view, 96, 358 –372.
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned
helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 87, 49 –74.
Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Tashman, N. A., Berrebbi, D. S., Hogan,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
M. E., Whitehouse, W. G., et al. (2001). Developmental origins of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
cognitive vulnerability to depression: Parenting, cognitive, and inferen-
tial feedback styles of the parents of individuals at high and low
cognitive risk for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25,
397– 423.
Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Bolger, N. (2001). Trait understanding or
evaluative reasoning? An analysis of behavioral predictions. Child De-
velopment, 72, 1409 –1425.
Barenboim, C. (1981). The development of person perception in childhood
and adolescence: From behavioral comparisons to psychological con-
structs to psychological comparisons. Child Development, 52, 129 –144.
Bennett, D. S., & Bates, J. E. (1995). Prospective models of depressive
symptoms in early adolescence: Attributional style, stress, and support.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 299 –315.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Pintrich, P. R., & Hamilton, V. L. (1986). Children’s
concepts of ability, effort, and conduct. American Educational Research
Journal, 23, 95–104.
Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. O. (1978). Social origins of depression: A
study of psychiatric disorder in women. New York: Free Press.
Bruce, A. E., Cole, D. A., Dallaire, D. H., Jacquez, F. M., Pineda, A. Q.,
& LaGrange, B. (2006). Relations of parenting and negative life events
to cognitive diatheses for depression in children. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 34, 321–333.
Chamberlain, J. M., Haaga, D. A. F., Thorndike, F. P., & Ahrens, A. H.
(2004). Metatraits and assessment of attributional style. Journal of
Psychology, 138, 521–531.
Cole, D. A., Hoffman, K., Tram, J. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Structural
differences in parent and child reports of children’s symptoms of de-
pression and anxiety. Psychological Assessment, 12, 174 –185.
Cole, D. A., & Jordan, A. (1995). Competence and memory: Integrating
psychosocial and cognitive correlates of child depression. Child Devel-
opment, 66, 459 – 473.
Cole, D. A., Martin, N. M., & Steiger, J. H. (2005). Empirical and
conceptual problems with longitudinal trait–state models: Support for a
trait–state– occasion model. Psychological Methods, 10, 3–20.
Cole, D. A., Maxwell, S. E., Martin, J. M., Peeke, L. G., Seroczynski,
A. D., Tram, J. M., et al. (2001). Age and gender effects in multiple
domains of child and adolescent self-concept: A cohort sequential lon-
gitudinal design. Child Development, 72, 1723–1746.
Cole, D. A., Peeke, L. G., Martin, J. M., Truglio, R., & Seroczynski, A. D.
(1998). A longitudinal look at the relation between depression and
anxiety in children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 66, 451– 460.
Cole, D. A., & Turner, J. E. (1993). Models of cognitive mediation and
moderation in child depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102,
271–281.
Conley, C. S., Haines, B. A., Hilt, L. M., & Metalsky, G. L. (2001). The
Children’s Attributional Style Interview: Developmental tests of cogni-
tive diathesis–stress theories of depression. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 29, 445– 463.
29
Craighead, W. E., Smucker, M. R., Craighead, L. W., & Ilardi, S. S.
(1998). Factor analysis of the Children’s Depression Inventory in a
community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 156 –165.
Devine, D., Kempton, T., & Forehand, R. (1994). Adolescent depressed
mood and young adult functioning: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 629 – 640.
Dixon, J. F., & Ahrens, A. H. (1992). Stress and attributional style as
predictors of self-reported depression in children. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 16, 623– 634.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social– cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 54, 5–12.
Feldt, L. S. (1980). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha reli-
ability coefficient is the same for two tests administered to the same
sample. Psychometrika, 45, 99 –105.
Fincham, F. D., & Cain, C. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: A
developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 6, 301–333.
Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1993). Exposure to violence and presence of depression
among low-income, African American youth. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61, 528 –531.
Freedman-Doan, C., Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Arbreton,
A., & Harold, R. D. (2000) What am I best at? Grade and gender
differences in children’s beliefs about ability improvement. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 379 – 402.
Garber, J., & Flynn, C. (2001). Predictors of depressive cognitions in
young adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 353–376.
Garber, J., & Robinson, N. S. (1997, April). The development and valida-
tion of the Life Events Interview for Adolescents. Paper presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Washington, DC.
Gibb, B. E., & Alloy, L. B. (2006). A prospective test of the hopelessness
theory of depression in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adoles-
cent Psychology, 35, 264 –274.
Gibb, B. E., Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Rose, D. T., Whitehouse,
W. G., Donovan, P., et al. (2001). History of childhood maltreatment,
negative cognitive styles, and episodes of depression in adulthood.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25, 425– 446.
Gladstone, T. R. G., & Kaslow, N. J. (1995). Depression and attributions
in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Abnor-
mal Child Psychology, 23, 597– 606.
Gnepp, J., & Chilamkurti, C. (1988). Children’s use of personality attri-
butions to predict other people’s emotional and behavioral reactions.
Child Development, 59, 743–754.
Grayson, D. A., & Marsh, G. W. (1994). Identification with deficient rank
loading matrices in confirmatory factor analysis: Multitrait–multimethod
models. Psychometrika, 59, 121–134.
Greening, L., Stoppelbein, L., Dhossche, D., & Martin, W. (2005). Psy-
chometric evaluation of a measure of Beck’s negative cognitive triad for
youth: Applications for African-American and Caucasian. Depression
and Anxiety, 21, 161–169.
Haaga, D. A. F., Ahrens, A. H., Schulman, P., Seligman, M. E. P.,
DeRubeis, R. J., & Minarik, M. L. (1995). Metatraits and cognitive
assessment: Application to attributional style and depressive symptoms.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 121–142.
Hammen, C., Adrian, C., & Hiroto, D. (1988). A longitudinal test of the
attributional vulnerability model in children at risk for depression. Brit-
ish Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 37– 46.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2002). Measuring cognitive vulnera-
bility to depression in adolescence: Reliability, validity, and gender
differences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31,
491–504.
Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., & Siler, M. (2001). A prospective test of
the hopelessness theory of depression in adolescence. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 25, 607– 632.
Hankin, B. L., Fraley, R. C., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2005). Daily depression and
 30 COLE ET AL.
cognitions about stress: Evidence for a traitlike depressogenic cog-
nitive style and the prediction of depressive symptoms in a prospec-
tive daily diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 673– 685.
Heyman, G. D., & Gelman, S. A. (1998). Young children use motive
information to make trait inferences. Developmental Psychology, 34,
310 –321.
Heyman, G. D., & Giles, J. W. (2004). Valence effects in reasoning about
evaluative traits. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 50, 86 –109.
Hilsman, R., & Garber, J. (1995). A test of the cognitive diathesis–stress
model of depression in children: Academic stressors, attributional style,
perceived competence, and control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 370 –380.
Holsen, I., Kraft, P., & Vitterso, J. (2000). Stability in depressed mood in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
adolescence: Results from a 6-year longitudinal panel study. Journal of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Youth and Adolescence, 29, 61–78.
Ingram, R. E. (2001). Developing perspectives on the cognitive–
developmental origins of depression: Back is the future. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 25, 497–504.
Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2000). A test of the hopelessness theory of depression in
youth psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29,
167–176.
Joiner, T. E., & Wagner, K. D. (1995). Attribution style and depression in
children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology
Review, 15, 777–798.
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (1995). The trait–state– error model for
multiwave data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,
52–59.
Kenny, D. A., & Zautra, A. (2001). Trait–state models for longitudinal
data. In L. M. Collins & A. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the
analysis of change (pp. 243–263). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Kovacs, M. (1981). Rating scales to assess depression in school-aged
children. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 46, 305–315.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI). Psycho-
pharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995–998.
Kraemer, H. C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A., Offord, D., & Kupfer, D. (2001).
How do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and inde-
pendent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 158, 848 – 856.
Lakdawalla, Z., Hankin, B. L., & Mermelstein, R. (2007). Cognitive
theories of depression in children and adolescents: A conceptual and
quantitative review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10,
1–24.
Lockhart, K. L., Chang, B., & Story, T. (2002). Young children’s beliefs
about the stability of traits: Protective optimism? Child Development,
73, 1408 –1430.
Maikranz, J. M., Steele, R. G., & Forehand, R. (2003). Longitudinal
correlates of depressive symptoms among urban African American
children: II. Extension of findings across 3 years. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 606 – 612.
Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankin, B. L. (2004). Is
there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review
of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving
attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711–747.
Mezulis, A. H., Hyde, J. S., & Abramson, L. Y. (2006). The developmental
origins of cognitive vulnerability to depression: Temperament, parent-
ing, and negative life events in childhood as contributors to negative
cognitive style. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1012–1025.
Miller, A. T. (1985). Changes in academic self concept in early school
years: The role of conceptions of ability. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 2, 551–558.
Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis–stress theories in the
context of life stress research: Implications for the depressive disorders.
Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406 – 425.
Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and
ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding
that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49,
800 – 814.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Concepts of ability, sub-
jective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review,
91, 328 –346.
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A
developmental perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligan Jr. (Eds.),
Competence considered (pp. 11– 40). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Reasoning about the ability of self
and others: A developmental study. Child Development, 55, 1990 –1999.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned
helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achieve-
ment, and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 51, 435– 442.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Predictors
and consequences of childhood depressive symptoms: A 5-year longi-
tudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 405– 422.
Normandeau, S., & Gobeil, A. (1998). A developmental perspective on
children’s understanding of causal attributions in achievement-related
situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 611–
632.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Panak, W., & Garber, J. (1992). Role of aggression, rejection, and attri-
butions in the prediction of depression in children. Development and
Psychopathology, 4, 145–165.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for
research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement,
1, 385– 401.
Radloff, L. S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 20, 149 –168.
Rholes, W. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1984). Children’s understanding of
dispositional characteristics of others. Child Development, 71, 1662–
1671.
Roberts, R. E., Andrews, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Hops, H. (1990).
Assessment of depression in adolescents using the Center for Epidemi-
ologic Studies Depression Scale. Psychological Assessment, 2, 122–128.
Robinson, N. S., Garber, J., & Hilsman, R. (1995). Cognitions and stress:
Direct and moderating effects on depressive versus externalizing symp-
toms during the junior high school transition. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 104, 453– 463.
Seligman, M. E., Abramson, L. Y., Semmel, A., & von Baeyer, C. (1979).
Depressive attributional style. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88,
242–247.
Seligman, M. E. P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy,
L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Attributional style and depressive
symptoms among children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 235–
238.
Sheeber, L., Hops, H., Alpert, A., Davis, B., & Andrews, J. (1997). Family
support and conflict: Prospective relations to adolescent depression.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 25, 333–344.
Smucker, M. R., Craighead, W. E., Craighead, L. W., & Green, B. J.
(1986). Normative and reliability data for the Children’s Depression
Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 25– 40.
Spence, S. H., Sheffield, J., & Donovan, C. (2002). Problem-solving
orientation and attributional style: Moderators of the impact of negative
life events on the development of depressive symptoms in adolescence?
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 219 –229.
 EMERGENCE OF ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE 31

Steyer, R., & Schmitt, T. (1994). The theory of confounding and its
application in causal modeling with latent variables. In A. von Eye &
C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for develop-
mental research (pp. 36 – 67). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stipek, D., & DeCotis, K. M. (1988). Children’s understanding of the
implications for emotional experiences. Child Development, 59, 1601–
1610.
Thompson, M., Kaslow, N. J., Weiss, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998).
Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire—Revised: Psychometric
examination. Psychological Assessment, 10, 166 –170.
Timbremont, B., Braet, C., & Dreessen, L. (2004). Assessing depression in
youth: Relation between the Children’s Depression Inventory and a
structured interview. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol-
ogy, 33, 149 –157.
Turner, J. E., Jr., & Cole, D. A. (1994). Developmental differences in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Twenge, J. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socio-
economic status, and birth cohort difference on the Children’s Depres-
sion Inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111,
578 –588.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models
for multitrait–multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9,
11–26.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Suk Yoon, K., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J.,
Freedman-Doan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s
competence beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary
school years: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 89, 451– 469.
Work, W. C., Cowen, E. L., Parker, G. T., & Wyman, P. A. (1990). Stress resilient
children in an urban setting. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11, 3–17.
Yuill, N., & Pearson, A. (1998). The development of bases for trait

cognitive diatheses for child depression. Journal of Abnormal Child attribution: Children’s understanding of traits as causal mechanisms
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Psychology, 22, 15–32. based on desire. Developmental Psychology, 34, 574 –586.

Appendix

Comparing the CASI and the ACSQ in a Subsample of 160 12-Year-Olds

Scale No. of items M SD Cronbach’s ␣ One-year stability

CASI
Internality 8 35.51 9.74 .78 .39*
Stability 8 26.80 8.93 .82 .41*
Globality 8 24.23 10.10 .80 .35*
ISG 24 86.77 23.04 .89 .49*
SG 16 51.07 17.00 .88 .45*

ACSQ
Internality 8 34.15 10.19 .74 .34*
Stability 8 25.75 9.17 .80 .49*
Globality 8 22.66 8.89 .78 .40*
ISG 24 82.75 23.49 .88 .57*
SG 16 48.41 16.45 .87 .52*

Note. CASI ⫽ Children’s Attributional Style Interview; ACSQ ⫽ Adolescent Cognitive Style Questionnaire;
I ⫽ internality; S ⫽ stability; G ⫽ globality.
*
p ⬍ .001.

Received November 21, 2005

Revision received August 8, 2007
Accepted September 7, 2007 䡲