A conceptual scheme for assessing evenhandedness and (counter) self-serving attributional biases in relation to depression

Various hypotheses have been proposed concerning the attributional styles of depressive and nondepressive persons. Some hypotheses are compatible with others; some are mutually exclusive. In this paper we present a scheme for organizing these hypotheses. A method is offered for deciding which hypothesis best fits data from samples which are heterogeneous with regard to extent of depression. The concepts reviewed include "self-serving bias," "counter-self-serving bias," "evenhandedness," "depressive lower self-enhancement," "counter-defensive attribution," the "Abramson, et al. hypothesis" that depressed persons attribute events with bad outcomes more to internal, stable, and global causes than do nondepressed persons, and the "Seligman, et al. hypothesis" that depressed persons attribute events of good outcome less to these causes than do nondepressed persons.