Background and objectives

Progress toward establishing treatments for mental disorders has been good, particularly for cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). However, there is considerable room for improvement. The goal of this study was to begin the process of investigating the potential for improving treatment outcome via improving our understanding of learning processes.

Methods

Individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder (N = 20) participated in three computer-delivered CBT lessons for depression. Indices of learning were taken after each lesson, during three phone calls over the week following the lesson, and one week later. These were: (a) whether the participant thought about the lesson, (b) whether the participant applied the lesson, and (c) whether the participant generalized the lesson. Based on a predetermined list of therapy points (i.e., distinct ideas and principles), all participant responses were coded for the number of therapy points they thought about, applied, or generalized following each lesson.

Results

Less than half of the thoughts and applications were accurate. Generalization, but not thoughts nor application, was associated with improved depression scores one week later.

Limitations

The follow up period was only one week later and there was no comparison group so we cannot speak to the long term outcome of these measures or generalize to other mental disorders.

Conclusions

These results point to the importance of improving transfer of learning in CBT and represent a promising first step toward the development of methods to study and optimize learning of CBT so as to improve patient outcomes.

Three experiments investigate how self-generated explanation influences children's causal learning. Five-year-olds (N = 114) observed data consistent with two hypotheses and were prompted to explain or to report each observation. In Study 1, when making novel generalizations, explainers were more likely to favor the hypothesis that accounted for more observations. In Study 2, explainers favored a hypothesis that was consistent with prior knowledge. Study 3 pitted a hypothesis that accounted for more observations against a hypothesis consistent with prior knowledge. Explainers were more likely to base generalizations on prior knowledge. Findings suggest that attempts to explain drive children to evaluate hypotheses using features of "good" explanations, or those supporting generalizations with broad scope, as informed by children's prior knowledge and observations.