Ellis’s explanation of depression | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
Updated: Sep 9
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 45 minutes
These Ellis’s explanation of depression A-Level Psychology revision notes explain how irrational beliefs may turn difficult events into unhealthy emotional and behavioural consequences. Ellis’s ABC model separates the activating event from the beliefs used to interpret it and the consequences that follow. You will examine musterbation, low frustration tolerance and unrealistic demands, apply the model to unfamiliar situations and compare Ellis’s explanation with Beck’s account of negative schemas and the negative triad.
Ellis’s ABC model is specifically required within the cognitive approach to explaining depression in the AQA specification.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain Ellis’s ABC model.
Distinguish activating events, beliefs and consequences.
Explain why activating events do not directly produce depression.
Explain the role of irrational beliefs.
Apply musterbation and other irrational beliefs to unfamiliar scenarios.
Compare Ellis’s explanation with Beck’s explanation.
Evaluate Ellis’s cognitive explanation using evidence, practical applications and alternative explanations.
Revision Notes 📚
Ellis’s explanation of depression A-Level Psychology revision overview
Albert Ellis proposed a cognitive explanation of depression known as the ABC model.
The model proposes that psychological consequences do not arise directly from difficult events.
Instead, the consequences depend largely on the beliefs used to interpret those events.
The three components are:
A: Activating event
B: Beliefs
C: Consequences
The central sequence is:
Activating event → beliefs about the event → emotional and behavioural consequences
The most important part of the explanation is B, the person’s beliefs.
Two people may experience the same event but respond differently because they interpret it in different ways.
The central idea
Ellis’s explanation can be summarised as:
It is not simply what happens to a person that determines their emotional response. The person’s beliefs about what happened are also important.
For example, two students receive the same disappointing examination result.
One thinks:
“I am disappointed, but I can identify what went wrong and improve.”
The other thinks:
“I must always succeed. This result proves that I am completely useless, and I cannot stand failing.”
The activating event is the same.
The beliefs and consequences are different.
A cognitive explanation
Ellis’s model belongs to the cognitive approach because it focuses on:
Thoughts.
Beliefs.
Interpretations.
Expectations.
Internal mental processes.
The approach assumes that people do not respond mechanically to an event.
They process and interpret it.
This reflects the study of internal mental processes.
The ABC model
Overview of the three stages
Stage | Meaning | Example |
A: Activating event | An event or situation occurs | A student receives a low mark |
B: Beliefs | The person interprets the event | “I must always succeed. Failing proves I am worthless.” |
C: Consequences | Emotional and behavioural outcomes follow | Low mood, hopelessness and withdrawal |
The complete model is:
A does not directly cause C. B mediates the relationship between A and C.
To mediate means to help explain how or why one variable affects another.
The person’s beliefs influence the consequences of the activating event.
A: Activating event
What is an activating event?
An activating event is an occurrence that triggers a person’s beliefs and emotional response.
Possible activating events include:
An examination result.
Rejection.
A disagreement.
A relationship ending.
Losing employment.
Receiving criticism.
Making a mistake.
Experiencing illness.
Being excluded from an activity.
Failing to achieve a personal goal.
The event may be:
Major.
Minor.
Expected.
Unexpected.
Real.
Misunderstood.
Interpreted as threatening.
The activating event is not necessarily the cause
Ellis did not argue that the event has no importance.
A painful event may genuinely be difficult.
However, the event alone does not explain why different people experience different consequences.
For example:
Two people may lose similar jobs.
One experiences disappointment but begins applying elsewhere.
The other concludes that they are worthless and will never work again.
Ellis would focus on the beliefs occurring between the event and the consequences.
Events can activate existing beliefs
A person may already hold rigid assumptions such as:
“I must succeed at everything.”
“Other people must approve of me.”
“Life must always be fair.”
“I cannot cope with rejection.”
An activating event brings these beliefs into focus.
For example:
Rejection activates the belief that everybody must approve of the person.
Major and minor events
The event does not need to appear severe to an observer.
A relatively minor criticism may activate powerful irrational beliefs.
For example:
A teacher suggests one improvement.
The student believes that all work must be perfect.
The student interprets the suggestion as proof of total failure.
Low mood and withdrawal follow.
The strength of the consequence depends partly on the belief, not only the apparent
seriousness of the event.
Real hardship still matters
The ABC model should not be interpreted as claiming that events are irrelevant.
Experiences such as:
Bereavement.
Poverty.
Abuse.
Discrimination.
Severe illness.
Homelessness.
may have substantial effects.
A person’s emotional response cannot always be reduced to faulty thinking.
This becomes an important limitation when evaluating Ellis’s explanation.
B: Beliefs
What are beliefs?
Beliefs are the ideas and assumptions a person uses to interpret an activating event.
Beliefs may concern:
The self.
Other people.
Success.
Failure.
Fairness.
Approval.
Control.
The future.
The person’s ability to cope.
Ellis distinguished between:
Rational beliefs.
Irrational beliefs.
Rational beliefs
A rational belief is flexible, realistic and supported by available evidence.
Examples include:
“I would prefer to succeed, but I do not have to succeed every time.”
“Rejection is painful, but I can cope with it.”
“I would like other people to approve of me, but I cannot control everybody’s opinion.”
“This situation is difficult, but it may improve.”
“Making a mistake does not make me worthless.”
Rational beliefs do not guarantee happiness.
A person may still experience:
Sadness.
Disappointment.
Concern.
Regret.
Frustration.
However, the emotions are more likely to remain proportionate and manageable.
Irrational beliefs
An irrational belief is rigid, extreme or unsupported by reasonable evidence.
Irrational beliefs often involve:
Absolute demands.
Catastrophic conclusions.
Low tolerance of discomfort.
Unrealistic expectations.
Global judgements about personal worth.
The assumption that one negative event ruins everything.
Examples include:
“I must succeed.”
“Everybody must approve of me.”
“Life must always be fair.”
“I cannot stand being criticised.”
“Failing once proves I am worthless.”
“Nothing must ever go wrong.”
Irrational does not mean deliberately foolish
The person is not necessarily choosing to think unreasonably.
An irrational belief may:
Develop gradually.
Operate automatically.
Feel completely convincing.
Be difficult to identify.
Be reinforced by previous experiences.
Calling a belief irrational refers to its rigid or illogical nature, not to the person’s intelligence.
Irrational beliefs and depression
Irrational beliefs may contribute to depression when they lead the person to interpret events in ways that produce:
Hopelessness.
Worthlessness.
Severe guilt.
Persistent low mood.
Withdrawal.
Loss of motivation.
Anger directed towards the self.
AQA mark-scheme guidance emphasises that irrational beliefs are the key causal element within Ellis’s model, rather than the activating event alone.
C: Consequences
What are consequences?
Consequences are the emotional and behavioural outcomes that follow the person’s beliefs.
They may be divided into:
Emotional consequences.
Behavioural consequences.
Emotional consequences
Possible emotional consequences include:
Low mood.
Anxiety.
Hopelessness.
Guilt.
Shame.
Anger.
Lowered self-esteem.
Emotional distress.
Behavioural consequences
Possible behavioural consequences include:
Social withdrawal.
Reduced activity.
Giving up.
Avoiding challenges.
Refusing support.
Remaining in bed.
Neglecting responsibilities.
Stopping enjoyable activities.
These consequences overlap with the behavioural, emotional and cognitive profile of depression.
However, the topics should remain distinct:
Characteristics describe what depression looks like.
Ellis’s model attempts to explain how irrational beliefs contribute to those characteristics.
Healthy and unhealthy consequences
A difficult event can produce a reasonable negative emotion.
For example, losing an opportunity may produce sadness.
Ellis’s model does not imply that every negative feeling is unhealthy.
A useful distinction is:
Rational belief | Likely consequence |
“I wanted this opportunity, but one rejection does not define me.” | Disappointment, followed by problem-solving |
“I must have this opportunity. Rejection proves I am worthless.” | Severe low mood, hopelessness and withdrawal |
The first person experiences a negative emotion but remains able to respond flexibly.
The second person’s irrational belief produces a more extreme and disabling consequence.
The full ABC sequence
Example: an unsuccessful application
A: Activating event
A university rejects an application.
B: Beliefs
The applicant thinks:
“I must be accepted. If I am rejected, it means I am completely incapable. I cannot stand this.”
C: Consequences
The person:
Feels worthless.
Becomes hopeless.
Stops completing other applications.
Withdraws from friends.
Believes future effort is pointless.
Alternative rational sequence
A: Activating event
The application is rejected.
B: Beliefs
The applicant thinks:
“I strongly wanted this offer, but rejection does not prove that I am incapable. I can consider feedback and other choices.”
C: Consequences
The person:
Feels disappointed.
Seeks advice.
Reviews other options.
Continues applying.
The activating event is identical.
The belief produces a different consequence.
Irrational beliefs in Ellis’s explanation
AQA mark schemes recognise several forms of irrational belief associated with Ellis’s account:
Musterbation.
I-can’t-stand-it-itis.
Utopianism.
These names sound unusual, but they describe clear patterns of rigid thinking.
Musterbation
What is musterbation?
Musterbation is the belief that certain things absolutely must, should or have to happen.
Examples include:
“I must succeed at everything.”
“I must be approved of by everybody.”
“Other people must treat me fairly.”
“My work must be perfect.”
“I must never make a mistake.”
“Life must go according to my plans.”
The problem is not having goals or preferences.
The problem is turning a preference into an absolute demand.
Preference compared with demand
Flexible preference | Rigid demand |
“I would like to succeed.” | “I must succeed.” |
“I hope people approve of me.” | “Everybody must approve of me.” |
“I prefer to be treated fairly.” | “People must always treat me fairly.” |
“I want to do well.” | “Anything below perfection is unacceptable.” |
A preference allows for the possibility of disappointment.
A demand treats failure to receive the preferred outcome as intolerable or catastrophic.
Demands directed towards the self
A person may believe:
“I must perform perfectly.”
“I must never appear weak.”
“I should always cope independently.”
“I have to be successful to have value.”
When the demand is not met, the person may conclude that they are:
Worthless.
Inadequate.
A failure.
Unacceptable.
Demands directed towards other people
A person may believe:
“Other people must respect me.”
“My friends must never disappoint me.”
“Everybody should behave fairly.”
“People must understand my needs.”
When others do not meet these demands, the person may experience:
Anger.
Resentment.
Rejection.
Hopelessness about relationships.
Demands directed towards life
A person may believe:
“Life must be easy.”
“Nothing should ever go wrong.”
“My circumstances must always be fair.”
“I must receive what I deserve.”
Ordinary difficulties may then feel like evidence that the whole world is unacceptable.
Example of musterbation
After receiving a lower mark than expected, Lucy thinks:
“I must always achieve the highest grade. Anything less proves I am worthless.”
The activating event is the grade.
The irrational belief is the absolute demand to succeed.
The consequence may be low self-esteem and withdrawal from future work.
I-can’t-stand-it-itis
What is I-can’t-stand-it-itis?
I-can’t-stand-it-itis is the belief that an unpleasant event is completely unbearable.
The person may think:
“I cannot stand rejection.”
“I cannot cope with criticism.”
“It is unbearable when things go wrong.”
“I could not survive making a mistake.”
“I cannot tolerate uncertainty.”
The belief reflects low frustration tolerance.
Low frustration tolerance
Low frustration tolerance means underestimating one’s ability to cope with discomfort, difficulty or disappointment.
The person may believe that:
Distress will never end.
The situation cannot be managed.
They are incapable of tolerating uncertainty.
Immediate relief is essential.
Continued effort is impossible.
Disliking something compared with being unable to tolerate it
There is a difference between:
“I strongly dislike being criticised.”
and:
“I cannot stand being criticised.”
The first statement recognises that the experience is unpleasant.
The second treats it as completely intolerable.
Behavioural consequences
If a person believes that they cannot tolerate an event, they may:
Avoid challenges.
Give up quickly.
Withdraw from relationships.
Refuse feedback.
Avoid future applications.
Stop attempting difficult tasks.
These actions may then reduce opportunities for success and strengthen low mood.
Example
After one relationship ends, Adam thinks:
“I cannot stand being alone. I will never cope with this.”
This belief may contribute to:
Hopelessness.
Social withdrawal.
Severe anxiety.
Reduced everyday functioning.
Utopianism
What is utopianism?
Utopianism is the belief that life and the world should always be ideal, fair or free from difficulty.
The person expects reality to match a perfect standard.
Examples include:
“The world must always be fair.”
“Good people should never suffer.”
“Life should be easy.”
“Other people should always behave properly.”
“Nothing bad should happen to me.”
“Everything should work out exactly as planned.”
Unrealistic expectations
The person may struggle to accept that life includes:
Uncertainty.
Disappointment.
Conflict.
Unfairness.
Mistakes.
Loss.
Outcomes beyond personal control.
When reality fails to match the ideal, the person may experience:
Anger.
Hopelessness.
Resentment.
Despair.
A sense that life is completely unacceptable.
Example
A student experiences one unfair decision and concludes:
“The world must be fair. If unfair things happen, life is completely pointless.”
The belief goes beyond recognising genuine unfairness.
It makes perfect fairness a condition for accepting life.
Utopianism and genuine injustice
Care is required when applying this concept.
A person may accurately recognise:
Discrimination.
Abuse.
Inequality.
Unfair treatment.
Challenging injustice is not irrational.
Utopianism refers to the absolute belief that:
The world must always be fair.
The person cannot cope when unfairness occurs.
Any unfairness makes the whole of life unbearable.
Awfulising and catastrophising
A related irrational process is awfulising, sometimes described as catastrophising.
This occurs when the person treats an unwanted event as the worst possible outcome.
Examples include:
“This is completely disastrous.”
“Nothing could be worse.”
“My life has been ruined.”
“This mistake is a total catastrophe.”
Example
A person misses one deadline and thinks:
“This is the worst thing that could happen. Everything is destroyed.”
The event may be important, but its meaning has been exaggerated.
Awfulising may combine with:
Musterbation.
Low frustration tolerance.
Global negative judgements.
For example:
“I must never make mistakes. This mistake is catastrophic, and I cannot stand it.”
Global self-rating
Irrational thinking may also involve judging the whole person according to one event.
For example:
“I failed, so I am a failure.”
“I behaved badly, so I am completely bad.”
“I was rejected, so I am unlovable.”
“I made a mistake, so I have no value.”
A specific action or outcome becomes a global judgement of personal worth.
This may contribute directly to lowered self-esteem.
Behaviour compared with identity
A more rational belief distinguishes:
“I performed poorly in this situation.”
from:
“I am completely worthless.”
One concerns a particular event.
The other condemns the whole person.
Combining irrational beliefs
A person may display several irrational beliefs at once.
Example
After failing a driving test, Ellis might predict that a person thinks:
“I must pass every test. This failure is a complete disaster. I cannot stand it, and it proves that I am useless.”
This includes:
Musterbation: “I must pass.”
Awfulising: “This is a complete disaster.”
Low frustration tolerance: “I cannot stand it.”
Global self-rating: “I am useless.”
The consequences may include:
Low mood.
Shame.
Withdrawal.
Refusal to try again.
Why B is the crucial part of the model
A common misunderstanding
A weak explanation might state:
“The person becomes depressed because they lost their job.”
This describes the activating event but ignores the cognitive process.
Ellis would argue that the event is interpreted through beliefs such as:
“I must always be employed.”
“Losing this job proves that I am worthless.”
“I cannot stand uncertainty.”
“I will never recover.”
Different beliefs produce different consequences
Activating event | Belief | Consequence |
Job loss | “This is painful, but I can seek support and consider alternatives.” | Sadness and practical action |
Job loss | “I must never fail. This proves I am worthless and my future is ruined.” | Hopelessness and withdrawal |
Criticism | “Feedback is uncomfortable but potentially useful.” | Disappointment and improvement |
Criticism | “Nobody must criticise me. I cannot stand it.” | Anger, shame and avoidance |
Relationship ending | “I am hurt, but I can cope over time.” | Grief and gradual adjustment |
Relationship ending | “I must be loved by this person. I cannot survive alone.” | Severe despair and withdrawal |
The examples demonstrate why Ellis places irrational beliefs at the centre of the explanation.
How irrational beliefs contribute to depression
Stage one: an activating event occurs
A difficult event takes place.
Stage two: irrational beliefs are activated
The person applies rigid demands and extreme interpretations.
Stage three: unhealthy consequences develop
The person experiences:
Severe low mood.
Hopelessness.
Worthlessness.
Withdrawal.
Reduced activity.
Stage four: consequences create new difficulties
Withdrawal may lead to:
Reduced social contact.
Unfinished responsibilities.
Fewer enjoyable experiences.
Reduced opportunities.
Increased isolation.
Stage five: the original belief appears confirmed
The person may conclude:
“Nobody wants me around.”
“I cannot achieve anything.”
“Nothing will improve.”
A self-maintaining cycle develops.
A self-reinforcing example
Activating event
Jamie is unsuccessful in an interview.
Irrational belief
Jamie thinks:
“I must succeed immediately. Rejection is unbearable and proves I am incapable.”
Emotional consequence
Jamie feels:
Worthless.
Hopeless.
Ashamed.
Behavioural consequence
Jamie:
Stops applying for jobs.
Avoids friends.
Remains inactive.
Further consequence
Because Jamie makes no further applications, no new opportunities arise.
Jamie then thinks:
“This proves that I will never succeed.”
The irrational belief influences behaviour, and the behavioural consequence appears to confirm the belief.
Applying the ABC model to unfamiliar scenarios
Application method
Use four stages:
Identify the activating event.
Identify the irrational belief.
Name the specific type of belief where possible.
Explain the emotional or behavioural consequence.
Exam-ready sentence structure
The activating event is [event]. However, Ellis would argue that this does not directly produce the consequence. The person’s belief that [belief] is irrational because [explanation], leading to [emotional or behavioural consequence].
Scenario 1: an examination result
Maya receives one lower grade than expected.
She says:
“I must achieve the highest grade. Anything less is unbearable and proves I am worthless.”
Application
A: Receiving the lower grade.
B: Maya believes she must always achieve the highest grade.
Musterbation: The word “must” expresses a rigid demand.
Low frustration tolerance: She describes the result as unbearable.
Global self-rating: One grade is used to judge her whole worth.
C: Possible low mood, shame and withdrawal from future study.
Scenario 2: delayed message
A friend does not reply to Noah’s message for several hours.
Noah thinks:
“My friends must always respond immediately. I cannot stand being ignored.”
Application
A: The delayed response.
B: Noah believes his friends must respond immediately.
Musterbation: He places an absolute demand on other people.
Low frustration tolerance: He believes he cannot tolerate the delay.
C: Anxiety, anger, low mood or withdrawal.
The scenario does not establish that the friend is deliberately ignoring Noah.
Scenario 3: rejection
Priya is unsuccessful in one application.
She thinks:
“I had to receive this opportunity. Losing it has ruined everything.”
Application
A: The unsuccessful application.
B: The belief that the opportunity was an absolute necessity.
Musterbation: “I had to receive it.”
Awfulising: One rejection is treated as total ruin.
C: Hopelessness and refusal to make further applications.
Scenario 4: criticism
A teacher suggests one improvement to Evan’s work.
Evan thinks:
“Nobody should ever criticise me. I cannot cope with being told I am wrong.”
Application
A: The teacher’s suggestion.
B: The belief that criticism must never occur.
Musterbation: Other people are required to behave according to Evan’s demand.
Low frustration tolerance: Evan believes he cannot cope.
C: Anger, shame and avoidance of future feedback.
Scenario 5: unfair treatment
Amira experiences an unfair decision.
She believes:
“The world must always be fair. Because this happened, life is completely unbearable.”
Application
A: The unfair decision.
B: The absolute demand that the world must always be fair.
Utopianism: Reality is expected to follow a perfect standard.
Awfulising: The whole of life is judged through one event.
C: Despair, anger and reduced motivation.
A strong answer should not imply that recognising unfairness is irrational.
The irrational element is the absolute demand and extreme conclusion.
Scenario 6: relationship breakdown
Following the end of a relationship, Luke thinks:
“I must be loved by this person. I cannot stand being alone, and I will never cope.”
Application
A: The relationship ending.
B: Luke believes that one person’s love is an absolute necessity.
Musterbation: “I must be loved.”
Low frustration tolerance: “I cannot stand being alone.”
C: Severe low mood, hopelessness and social withdrawal.
Scenario 7: rational belief
Following a disappointing result, Zara thinks:
“I strongly wanted to do well, but one result does not determine my worth. I can ask for feedback.”
Application
A: The disappointing result.
B: Zara holds a flexible and rational belief.
C: She may feel disappointed but continues functioning and takes constructive action.
This demonstrates that the ABC model can explain healthy as well as unhealthy consequences.
Rational and irrational beliefs compared
Rational belief | Irrational belief |
Flexible | Rigid |
Expresses a preference | Expresses an absolute demand |
Allows uncertainty | Requires certainty |
Accepts discomfort | Treats discomfort as unbearable |
Evaluates a specific action | Condemns the whole person |
Recognises mixed outcomes | Uses all-or-nothing judgements |
Encourages problem-solving | Encourages withdrawal or avoidance |
“I would like to succeed.” | “I must succeed.” |
“This is difficult.” | “This is completely unbearable.” |
“I made a mistake.” | “I am a total failure.” |
Ellis’s explanation compared with Beck’s explanation
Ellis and Beck both provide cognitive explanations of depression.
They share important assumptions but focus on different cognitive processes.
Similarities between Ellis and Beck
Both are cognitive explanations
Both theories argue that depression is influenced by:
Thoughts.
Beliefs.
Interpretations.
Internal mental processes.
Neither theory explains depression only through:
Biology.
External events.
Observable behaviour.
Both emphasise negative cognition
Ellis focuses on:
Irrational demands.
Low frustration tolerance.
Catastrophic conclusions.
Beck focuses on:
Negative schemas.
Faulty information processing.
The negative triad.
Both argue that negative cognition may increase vulnerability to or maintain depression.
Both explain different responses to similar events
Two people may experience the same event but respond differently because of:
Their beliefs.
Their schemas.
Their interpretation of the situation.
Both have practical applications
Both explanations contributed to challenging irrational and negative thoughts in treatment.
Therapy may help a person:
Identify unhelpful beliefs.
Examine evidence.
Challenge extreme conclusions.
Develop more flexible interpretations.
Test beliefs through behaviour.
Both face a causality problem
For both explanations, it is difficult to establish whether:
Negative cognition causes depression.
Depression causes negative cognition.
The relationship works in both directions.
Another factor causes both.
Differences between Ellis and Beck
Different models
Ellis proposed:
Activating event → beliefs → consequences
Beck proposed:
Negative schemas → faulty information processing → negative triad → depressive symptoms
Different central cognitive factors
Ellis | Beck |
Irrational beliefs | Negative schemas |
Musterbation | Faulty information processing |
Low frustration tolerance | Magnification and overgeneralisation |
Utopianism | Negative triad |
Beliefs mediate an activating event and its consequences | Schemas bias the processing of experiences |
Different emphasis on events
Ellis’s model begins with an activating event.
His explanation is particularly clear when:
A specific event occurs.
Irrational beliefs are applied to it.
Emotional and behavioural consequences follow.
Beck’s account places more emphasis on:
Underlying schemas.
Cognitive vulnerability.
The way information is selected and processed.
Negative views that may operate across many experiences.
Different language
Ellis uses demands such as:
“I must.”
“Others should.”
“Life has to.”
Beck uses beliefs such as:
“I am worthless.”
“The world is hostile.”
“The future is hopeless.”
Different explanation of the cognitive process
Ellis asks:
“What irrational belief lies between the event and the consequence?”
Beck asks:
“What negative schema and processing bias shape the person’s view of the self, world and future?”
Reactive and endogenous depression
AQA mark schemes have accepted the argument that Ellis’s explanation may be particularly applicable to reactive depression, where symptoms follow a recognisable life event.
Beck’s account may be used to explain cognitive vulnerability in depression that does not have one obvious external trigger.
This comparison should not be treated as an absolute division.
A person may experience:
An activating event.
Negative schemas.
Irrational beliefs.
Biological vulnerability.
at the same time.
Beck may emphasise development more clearly
Beck’s negative schemas may develop through earlier experiences and remain latent until activated.
Ellis focuses more directly on the beliefs used when interpreting the present activating event.
Direct comparison table
Feature | Ellis | Beck |
Core model | ABC model | Negative schemas, processing biases and negative triad |
Starting point | Activating event | Cognitive vulnerability or activated schema |
Main mechanism | Irrational beliefs | Faulty information processing |
Key terms | Musterbation, low frustration tolerance, utopianism | Magnification, overgeneralisation, negative triad |
Main question | What does the person believe about the event? | How do schemas bias views of the self, world and future? |
Strongest application | Reactions to identifiable activating events | Persistent negative cognitive patterns |
Treatment implication | Challenge irrational demands | Challenge negative schemas and automatic thoughts |
Shared limitation | Direction of causality is difficult to establish | Direction of causality is difficult to establish |
Comparing the same scenario
Scenario
A student receives one low mark.
Ellis’s explanation
The student thinks:
“I must always succeed. I cannot stand failure.”
This includes:
Musterbation.
Low frustration tolerance.
An irrational belief mediating the event and the consequence.
Beck’s explanation
The student thinks:
Self: “I am unintelligent.”
World: “The education system is against me.”
Future: “I will never succeed.”
This demonstrates the negative triad.
The student may also:
Magnify the importance of the mark.
Overgeneralise from one result.
Process the event through a negative self-schema.
Central distinction
Ellis emphasises the rigid demand:
“I must succeed.”
Beck emphasises the negative interpretation:
“This proves I am incapable, the world is against me and the future is hopeless.”
Comparing another scenario
Scenario
A relationship ends.
Ellis
The person believes:
“This relationship must continue. I cannot stand being alone.”
The emotional consequence follows the irrational demand and low frustration tolerance.
Beck
The person believes:
“I am unlovable.”
“Other people always reject me.”
“I will always be alone.”
These beliefs represent the negative triad and may be influenced by a negative self-schema.
Strengths of Ellis’s explanation
Strength: the model explains individual differences
The ABC model explains why the same event may produce different consequences for different people.
The event alone cannot explain these differences.
Beliefs provide an additional psychological mechanism.
For example:
One person treats rejection as disappointing.
Another treats it as proof of worthlessness.
A third becomes angry because they believe rejection must never occur.
The model recognises that individuals actively interpret experiences.
Strength: it identifies a clear cognitive mechanism
The ABC structure is straightforward:
Event.
Belief.
Consequence.
This gives the explanation clarity.
The model makes specific predictions about irrational thinking.
People vulnerable to depression should show more:
Rigid demands.
Catastrophic conclusions.
Low frustration tolerance.
Global self-condemnation.
These predictions can be investigated.
Strength: research supports cognitive vulnerability
Prospective research has found that people identified as cognitively vulnerable are more likely to experience later depression.
Alloy and colleagues followed participants with different cognitive styles and found that vulnerability based on negative thinking was associated with later depressive difficulties.
This supports the general claim that cognition may precede depression rather than merely appearing after it.
Official AQA mark-scheme guidance recognises Alloy and colleagues as relevant evidence when evaluating Ellis’s ABC model.
Why prospective research matters
A prospective study measures cognition before later depressive outcomes.
This helps establish temporal order:
Irrational or negative cognition is assessed.
Participants are followed over time.
Depression is measured later.
Researchers examine whether earlier cognition predicts later symptoms.
If cognition is present first, this supports a possible causal role.
However, prospective evidence remains correlational and cannot remove every alternative explanation.
Strength: practical application
Ellis’s explanation led to methods that challenge irrational beliefs.
A therapist may help a client replace:
“I must succeed at everything”
with:
“I strongly prefer to succeed, but occasional failure does not determine my worth.”
This practical application suggests that the explanation identifies changeable psychological processes.
The ABCDE extension
Ellis’s approach may be extended from ABC to ABCDE:
A: Activating event.
B: Beliefs.
C: Consequences.
D: Disputing irrational beliefs.
E: Effective new beliefs and consequences.
This is closely related to rational emotive behaviour therapy and the next lesson on challenging irrational thoughts.
For this lesson, the core examinable explanation remains ABC.
Treatment as indirect support
When challenging irrational beliefs reduces depression, it supports the importance of cognition.
However, treatment effectiveness does not prove that irrational beliefs originally caused the disorder.
A therapy may successfully change a maintaining factor even when other causes were involved.
Strength: it can be empowering
The model suggests that emotional consequences are not completely controlled by external events.
A person may be able to learn:
More flexible beliefs.
Greater tolerance of discomfort.
Less global self-judgement.
More realistic expectations.
This may increase a sense of control.
However, this strength depends on avoiding the suggestion that people are to blame for their depression.
Limitations of Ellis’s explanation
Limitation: the relationship may be correlational
Research may show that irrational beliefs and depression occur together.
This does not prove that irrational beliefs cause depression.
Possible relationships include:
Irrational beliefs cause depressive symptoms.
Depression makes beliefs more irrational or negative.
Each influences the other.
A third factor influences both.
Depression may produce irrational beliefs
Low mood may affect:
Memory.
Attention.
Expectations.
Self-evaluation.
A person experiencing depression may be more likely to think:
“Nothing will improve.”
“I cannot cope.”
“I am worthless.”
The beliefs may therefore be consequences as well as causes.
Bidirectional explanation
A more complete account may involve a cycle:
Irrational beliefs increase low mood.
Low mood makes irrational beliefs more convincing.
Withdrawal creates additional difficulties.
These difficulties reinforce the beliefs.
This bidirectional explanation may be more realistic than a simple one-way sequence.
Limitation: activating events and beliefs are difficult to separate
A severe event may have a substantial emotional effect even without obvious irrational thinking.
For example:
Bereavement.
Serious illness.
Abuse.
Extreme financial insecurity.
It may be difficult to decide how much distress results from:
The event.
The person’s belief.
Previous experiences.
Available support.
Biological vulnerability.
The ABC model may appear more precise than real-life emotional experiences allow.
Limitation: some beliefs may be realistic
A person may believe that:
Their situation is highly difficult.
Opportunities are limited.
Other people have treated them unfairly.
The future contains serious risks.
These beliefs are not necessarily irrational.
A professional must distinguish:
Realistic concern.
A rational negative emotional response.
Rigid and unsupported cognition.
Labelling realistic beliefs as irrational could invalidate the person’s experience.
Limitation: social circumstances may be underplayed
The model focuses on how the individual interprets events.
This may overlook the effects of:
Poverty.
Discrimination.
Abuse.
Unemployment.
Social isolation.
Unsafe housing.
Lack of access to support.
A person’s distress may not be reduced adequately by changing beliefs if the harmful circumstances continue.
Limitation: risk of blaming the individual
The model could be interpreted as saying:
“Your depression results from the way you think.”
This may make the person appear responsible for their symptoms.
Such an interpretation ignores that irrational beliefs may be:
Automatic.
Learned through experience.
Difficult to control.
Influenced by trauma.
Combined with biological factors.
The model should be used to identify possible routes for support, not to blame the client.
Limitation: biological factors are neglected
Ellis’s model does not directly explain the role of:
Genetics.
Neurochemistry.
Brain function.
Hormones.
Physical illness.
Biological factors could contribute to both:
Depressive mood.
Changes in thinking.
An interactionist explanation may therefore be more complete.
Limitation: emotional aspects may be underplayed
Depression involves more than beliefs.
People may experience:
Emotional numbness.
Persistent sadness.
Anger.
Changes in sleep.
Changes in appetite.
Reduced energy.
Physical slowing or agitation.
A cognitive explanation may not fully account for these features.
AQA marking guidance recognises that cognitive explanations may underplay the emotional aspects of depression.
Limitation: cognitive reductionism
Ellis’s explanation may be described as cognitively reductionist because it explains a complex disorder mainly through beliefs.
The advantage is that the model is:
Clear.
Testable.
Applicable to treatment.
The disadvantage is that it may overlook interactions involving:
Biology.
Behaviour.
Relationships.
Social conditions.
Life events.
Culture.
Limitation: self-report measurement
Irrational beliefs are commonly investigated through:
Interviews.
Questionnaires.
Self-report scales.
These measures may be affected by:
Social desirability.
Poor insight.
Memory.
Current mood.
Different interpretations of questions.
A depressed participant may report more negative beliefs because of their current symptoms.
This makes causal conclusions particularly difficult.
Limitation: not everyone displays the same beliefs
People experiencing depression may not all show:
Musterbation.
Low frustration tolerance.
Utopianism.
Clear catastrophising.
An identifiable activating event.
Ellis’s explanation may therefore describe some experiences of depression more effectively than others.
Reactive depression
The ABC model may be especially useful when:
A recognisable event occurs.
The person applies an irrational belief.
Depression follows the interpretation.
This may fit reactive depression particularly well.
However, it may be less complete where:
There is no obvious activating event.
Biological factors are prominent.
Symptoms appear independently of an identifiable trigger.
Does therapy prove Ellis’s explanation?
What successful therapy supports
If challenging irrational beliefs reduces symptoms, this suggests that cognition:
Contributes to the disorder.
Helps maintain symptoms.
Is a useful target for treatment.
Can be changed.
What therapy does not prove
Therapy effectiveness does not prove that:
Irrational beliefs were the original cause.
Biology played no role.
The activating event was unimportant.
Every client’s depression developed through ABC.
Ellis’s explanation is more accurate than every alternative.
Example
A client’s depression may have developed through an interaction of:
Genetic vulnerability.
Bereavement.
Social isolation.
Irrational beliefs.
Changing the beliefs may still reduce symptoms.
This demonstrates therapeutic usefulness without proving a single cognitive cause.
Evaluating research evidence
Supportive finding
Suppose a study finds that people with more rigid irrational beliefs later report greater depressive symptoms.
This supports Ellis because:
The cognitive factor appears before the outcome.
The result follows the model’s prediction.
Irrational cognition may represent vulnerability.
Remaining limitation
The study does not establish that the belief caused depression because:
Participants were not randomly assigned to beliefs.
A third variable may influence both.
Early symptoms may already have been present.
Self-report measures may be affected by mood.
Experimental difficulty
Researchers cannot ethically create severe depression by encouraging irrational beliefs.
This means much evidence must come from:
Correlations.
Prospective research.
Clinical interviews.
Treatment outcomes.
Direct experimental proof is therefore difficult.
Applying comparison in examination answers
Weak comparison
Ellis has the ABC model. Beck has the negative triad.
This names the explanations but does not compare them.
Stronger comparison
Both explanations argue that negative cognition contributes to depression. However, Ellis focuses on irrational beliefs that mediate the relationship between an activating event and its consequences, whereas Beck focuses on negative schemas, faulty information processing and negative views of the self, world and future.
Further developed comparison
Ellis may be particularly useful for explaining depression following an identifiable life event because the model begins with an activating event. Beck’s theory provides a broader account of cognitive vulnerability because underlying schemas may bias the interpretation of many different experiences.
Treatment comparison
Both theories support cognitive behaviour therapy. Ellis-derived treatment challenges rigid demands such as “I must succeed”, whereas Beck-derived treatment may identify negative schemas and automatic thoughts about the self, world and future.
Answering application questions
Identify A accurately
The activating event is what happens.
For example:
A rejection.
A low mark.
A criticism.
An argument.
It is not:
The person’s belief.
Their sadness.
Their withdrawal.
Identify B accurately
The belief is the person’s interpretation.
For example:
“I must succeed.”
“I cannot stand rejection.”
“Life must always be fair.”
Identify C accurately
The consequence is the emotional or behavioural outcome.
For example:
Low mood.
Shame.
Hopelessness.
Withdrawal.
Reduced activity.
Strong application structure
The activating event is Sam’s unsuccessful application. Sam’s statement that he “must always succeed” shows musterbation because he turns a preference into an absolute demand. His belief that rejection is unbearable shows low frustration tolerance. These irrational beliefs may lead to the emotional consequence of hopelessness and the behavioural consequence of abandoning further applications.
Answering comparison questions
The command word compare requires explicit similarities or differences.
Use language such as:
Both.
Whereas.
In contrast.
Similarly.
Unlike.
Useful comparison structure
State one similarity.
Explain how it applies to Ellis.
Explain how it applies to Beck.
State one difference.
Explain the significance of the difference.
Example structure
Both Ellis and Beck explain depression through maladaptive cognition. Ellis identifies irrational beliefs within the ABC sequence, while Beck identifies negative schemas and processing biases. However, Ellis places greater emphasis on the interpretation of a specific activating event, whereas Beck explains a broader vulnerability involving negative views of the self, world and future.
Planning an extended response
A clear response could follow this order:
Define the cognitive explanation.
Introduce the ABC model.
Explain the activating event.
Explain rational and irrational beliefs.
Explain emotional and behavioural consequences.
Explain why B mediates A and C.
Describe musterbation.
Describe low frustration tolerance.
Describe utopianism or awfulising.
Apply the model to a scenario.
Compare Ellis with Beck.
Use cognitive vulnerability research as support.
Discuss correlation and causality.
Explain the practical application to CBT.
Discuss social and biological alternatives.
Reach a balanced conclusion.
A balanced assessment
Ellis’s ABC model is valuable because it:
Identifies specific and testable irrational beliefs.
Distinguishes events from their interpretations.
Helps explain emotional and behavioural consequences.
Has practical applications through cognitive behaviour therapy.
Is supported by evidence that cognitive vulnerability can precede depression.
However, it is incomplete because:
Correlation does not establish that irrational beliefs cause depression.
Depression may itself increase irrational thinking.
Severe events and social conditions may have direct effects.
Some negative beliefs are realistic.
Biological and emotional factors are underplayed.
Not every person with depression shows the same ABC pattern.
The model may be more applicable to reactive depression than to every form of the disorder.
The most justified conclusion is:
Irrational beliefs can help explain why an activating event contributes to unhealthy emotional and behavioural consequences. Ellis’s model is most convincing as part of a broader explanation in which cognition interacts with life events, behaviour, social circumstances and biological vulnerability.
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Do not state that the activating event directly causes depression. Ellis argues that the person’s irrational beliefs mediate the relationship between the event and its consequences.
Examiner hint: Give each letter its correct meaning. A is the activating event, B is the belief and C is the emotional or behavioural consequence.
Examiner hint: Place most explanatory emphasis on B. The irrational belief is the key causal factor within Ellis’s model.
Examiner hint: Do not merely list “A, B and C”. Explain what happens at each stage and show how the stages are connected.
Examiner hint: Learn named irrational beliefs. Musterbation, low frustration tolerance and utopianism can make an answer more precise.
Examiner hint: In application questions, identify the exact words showing the irrational belief. A statement containing “must”, “cannot stand” or “everything is ruined” provides useful evidence.
Examiner hint: When comparing Ellis with Beck, use direct comparative language. Do not write two isolated descriptions.
Examiner hint: Research evidence should be linked back to the explanation. Explain whether cognition preceded depression and whether the study can establish cause.
Examiner hint: Cognitive behaviour therapy is a useful practical application, but treatment success does not prove that irrational beliefs were the original cause.
AQA’s June 2024 examiner report found that students often listed parts of cognitive explanations without developing them. For Ellis, students needed to emphasise irrational beliefs rather than treating the activating event as the direct cause of depression.
Official AQA mark-scheme guidance identifies the activating event, irrational beliefs and consequences as the central model, with musterbation, I-can’t-stand-it-itis and utopianism as relevant examples. It also recognises research evidence, CBT, causality, reactive depression and biological alternatives as useful evaluation.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying the activating event directly causes depression
Why this is incorrect:
Ellis argues that beliefs mediate the relationship between the event and the consequence.
How to improve:
Explain what the person believes about the activating event.
Mistake: Giving the letters in the wrong order
Why this is incorrect:
A is activating event, B is beliefs and C is consequences.
How to improve:
Remember: event, interpretation, outcome.
Mistake: Defining B as behaviour
Why this is incorrect:
B stands for beliefs, not behaviour.
How to improve:
Behavioural outcomes belong under C.
Mistake: Defining C only as cognition
Why this is incorrect:
C refers to emotional and behavioural consequences.
How to improve:
Give examples such as low mood and withdrawal.
Mistake: Describing every negative event as an activating event that causes depression
Why this is too simplistic:
Different beliefs can produce different outcomes following the same event.
How to improve:
Compare rational and irrational interpretations.
Mistake: Saying every negative belief is irrational
Why this is inaccurate:
Some negative beliefs are realistic responses to genuine difficulties.
How to improve:
Look for rigidity, exaggeration and lack of evidence.
Mistake: Defining musterbation as wanting something
Why this is incorrect:
Preferences are not necessarily irrational.
How to improve:
Musterbation involves an absolute “must”, “should” or “have to”.
Mistake: Saying musterbation is a behavioural action
Why this is incorrect:
It is a cognitive demand.
How to improve:
Classify it as an irrational belief.
Mistake: Saying low frustration tolerance means becoming mildly annoyed
Why this is incomplete:
The person believes that discomfort is completely unbearable.
How to improve:
Refer to underestimating the ability to cope.
Mistake: Saying utopianism means wanting society to improve
Why this is incorrect:
Wanting improvement can be rational.
How to improve:
Utopianism is the absolute belief that reality must always be perfect or fair.
Mistake: Treating recognition of injustice as irrational
Why this is insensitive and inaccurate:
Some circumstances are genuinely unfair.
How to improve:
Focus on the absolute demand that unfairness must never occur or cannot be tolerated.
Mistake: Confusing awfulising with overgeneralisation
Why this is inaccurate:
Awfulising exaggerates how disastrous an event is. Overgeneralisation applies one event too broadly.
How to improve:
Identify whether the event is being magnified or extended.
Mistake: Confusing Ellis with Beck
Why this is incorrect:
Beck proposed negative schemas, faulty processing and the negative triad.
How to improve:
Use ABC and irrational beliefs for Ellis.
Mistake: Giving the negative triad as Ellis’s model
Why this is incorrect:
The negative triad belongs to Beck’s cognitive explanation.
How to improve:
Use activating events, beliefs and consequences.
Mistake: Describing Ellis and Beck without comparing them
Why this may lose comparison marks:
The relationship between the theories has not been stated.
How to improve:
Use words such as “both”, “whereas” and “in contrast”.
Mistake: Saying Ellis ignores events completely
Why this is incorrect:
The model begins with an activating event.
How to improve:
Explain that the event matters but does not directly determine the consequence.
Mistake: Saying rational thinking prevents all sadness
Why this is incorrect:
Rational beliefs can still produce appropriate sadness or disappointment.
How to improve:
Distinguish healthy negative emotion from disabling consequences.
Mistake: Saying research correlation proves causation
Why this is incorrect:
Depression may cause irrational thinking, or another variable may influence both.
How to improve:
Discuss direction of causality.
Mistake: Saying prospective research completely proves Ellis
Why this is too strong:
Measuring cognition first improves temporal evidence but does not eliminate third variables.
How to improve:
Describe prospective evidence as supportive rather than conclusive.
Mistake: Saying CBT proves irrational beliefs caused the depression
Why this is incorrect:
Successful treatment may change a maintaining factor without identifying the original cause.
How to improve:
Describe treatment as indirect support.
Mistake: Ignoring biological explanations
Why this makes the evaluation incomplete:
Genes, neurochemistry and physical factors may contribute to depression.
How to improve:
Use an interactionist conclusion.
Mistake: Blaming the person for having irrational beliefs
Why this is inappropriate:
The beliefs may be automatic and shaped by previous experiences.
How to improve:
Describe them as vulnerability or maintenance factors rather than deliberate choices.
Mistake: Applying beliefs that are not in the scenario
Why this loses application credit:
The answer must be grounded in the information provided.
How to improve:
Use the person’s exact statements and behaviour.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following correctly identifies the stages of Ellis’s ABC model?
A. Action, behaviour and cognition
B. Activating event, beliefs and consequences
C. Anxiety, behaviour and control
D. Activating event, behaviour and conditioning
[1 mark]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer: B. Activating event, beliefs and consequences
Question 2
Define an irrational belief in the context of Ellis’s explanation of depression.
[2 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 2
2 marks: Clear definition referring to an unrealistic, illogical or unreasonable belief that can produce maladaptive emotional consequences.
1 mark: Limited or partial definition.
Indicative content
Irrational beliefs are unrealistic or illogical evaluations of events.
They may involve rigid demands, catastrophising or beliefs that negative events are unbearable.
Ellis proposed that these beliefs, rather than the activating event itself, contribute to depression.
Example answer
An irrational belief is an unrealistic or illogical way of interpreting an event that can lead to unhealthy emotional consequences such as depression or anxiety.
Question 3
Outline Ellis’s ABC model.
[3 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 3
Award 1 mark each for:
A, activating event, an event or situation occurs.
B, beliefs, the person interprets the event using rational or irrational beliefs.
C, consequences, irrational beliefs may produce negative emotional consequences such as depression or anxiety.
Example answer
In Ellis's model, A is an activating event. B is the person's beliefs about the event, which may be irrational. C is the emotional consequence of those beliefs, such as depression or anxiety.
AQA's 2025 examiner report emphasises that the irrational belief is the causal factor, rather than assuming that the activating event itself directly causes depression.
Question 4
Explain what Ellis meant by musterbation.
[3 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 3
Award 1 mark each for:
Musterbation is a form of irrational belief.
It involves rigid demands using terms such as "must", "should" or "have to".
Failure to meet these unrealistic demands can produce negative emotional consequences such as depression.
Indicative content
Examples might include:
"I must always succeed."
"Other people must approve of me."
"Life must always be fair."
Example answer
Musterbation is an irrational belief in which a person makes rigid demands about how they, other people or the world must behave. For example, believing "I must always succeed" may lead to depression when this unrealistic demand is not met.
AQA specifically accepts musterbation as an example of irrational belief within Ellis's model.
Question 5
Following one unsuccessful application, Mia says:
“I must always succeed. Rejection is unbearable, and this proves I am completely useless.”
Use Ellis’s explanation to explain Mia’s response.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award credit for effective application of the ABC model and irrational beliefs.
Indicative content
A, activating event: Mia's unsuccessful application.
B, irrational belief: "I must always succeed" demonstrates musterbation.
"Rejection is unbearable" reflects an irrational belief that the negative event cannot be tolerated.
"This proves I am completely useless" is an extreme negative evaluation of herself.
Ellis argues that these beliefs, rather than the rejection itself, produce the emotional consequence.
C, consequence: Mia may experience depressive feelings, anxiety, worthlessness or other negative emotional consequences.
Example answer
The activating event is Mia's unsuccessful application. However, Ellis argued that the event itself does not directly cause depression. Mia's beliefs about it are irrational. Saying "I must always succeed" is musterbation because she places a rigid demand on herself. Saying that rejection is unbearable and that she is completely useless also exaggerates the meaning of one setback. These irrational beliefs may then produce the consequence of depression, anxiety or feelings of worthlessness.
Question 6
Two students receive the same disappointing result.
Student A says:
“I am disappointed, but I can learn from it.”
Student B says:
“I had to succeed. Failing means that I am worthless.”
Use Ellis’s ABC model to explain why the students may experience different consequences.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2 = 6
Award credit for clear application of A, B and C to the difference between the students.
Indicative content
Both students experience the same activating event, the disappointing result.
Student A holds a more rational belief, recognising disappointment but believing improvement is possible.
This is likely to produce a less damaging emotional consequence.
Student B shows an irrational belief through "I had to succeed", an example of musterbation.
Equating failure with worthlessness is also an extreme irrational evaluation.
Student B is therefore more likely to experience depressive or anxious consequences.
Example answer
The activating event is the same for both students, so Ellis would argue that the different consequences result from their beliefs. Student A interprets the result rationally and believes they can learn from it, so disappointment may be temporary. Student B believes that they "had to" succeed, which is musterbation, and concludes that failure makes them worthless. These irrational beliefs are more likely to produce consequences such as depression or severe anxiety.
Question 7
Explain one similarity and one difference between Ellis’s explanation and Beck’s explanation of depression.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO1 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for the similarity and 3 marks for the difference.
Indicative content
Similarity
Both are cognitive explanations.
Both propose that maladaptive patterns of thinking contribute to depression.
Both therefore focus on cognition rather than viewing negative events themselves as sufficient causes.
Difference
Ellis focuses on irrational beliefs following an activating event, described by the ABC model.
Beck focuses on negative schemas, faulty information processing and the negative triad of self, world and future.
Also credit the distinction that Ellis's model is particularly applicable to reactive depression, whereas AQA notes Beck's account may be more effective for endogenous depression.
Example answer
One similarity is that both Ellis and Beck give cognitive explanations, arguing that patterns of negative or maladaptive thinking contribute to depression. One difference is that Ellis explains depression using the ABC model, where an activating event is interpreted through irrational beliefs that produce emotional consequences. Beck instead focuses on negative schemas, faulty information processing and negative views of the self, world and future.
Question 8
A researcher measures irrational-belief scores in a group of participants and records their depression scores one year later.
Irrational-belief score | Mean depression score one year later |
Low | 8.6 |
Moderate | 14.7 |
High | 22.9 |
Describe the pattern shown in the table. Explain one conclusion and one limitation of these findings.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO2/AO3 = 6
Award up to 2 marks for describing the pattern, 2 marks for a conclusion and 2 marks for a limitation.
Indicative content
Pattern
Depression scores increase as irrational-belief scores increase.
The low group has a mean depression score of 8.6.
This rises to 14.7 for the moderate group and 22.9 for the high group.
Conclusion
Higher levels of irrational beliefs are associated with higher later depression.
Because irrational beliefs were measured before depression one year later, the findings are consistent with Ellis's view that irrational beliefs may create vulnerability to depression.
Limitation
The researcher has measured naturally occurring variables rather than manipulating irrational beliefs.
Other variables may cause both irrational beliefs and depression.
Therefore, the findings cannot establish cause and effect.
Example answer
There is a positive relationship between irrational beliefs and later depression. Mean depression rises from 8.6 in the low irrational-belief group to 14.7 in the moderate group and 22.9 in the high group. This supports Ellis because stronger irrational beliefs are associated with greater depression one year later. However, the study does not manipulate beliefs, so it cannot show that irrational beliefs caused the depression. A third variable could influence both.
AQA's evaluation guidance explicitly recognises that the relationship between cognition and depression may be correlational rather than causal
Question 9
Explain one way in which cognitive behaviour therapy provides support for Ellis’s explanation and one reason why this support is not conclusive.
[6 marks]
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Mark scheme
AO3 = 6
Award up to 3 marks for the support and 3 marks for why it is not conclusive.
Indicative content
Support
Cognitive behaviour therapy targets maladaptive or irrational thinking.
Ellis's approach contributed to REBT, where irrational beliefs are identified and challenged.
If changing irrational beliefs reduces depressive symptoms, this is consistent with Ellis's claim that such beliefs contribute to depression.
The explanation therefore has useful practical application.
Why not conclusive
Successfully treating a factor does not demonstrate that the factor originally caused the disorder.
CBT contains several components, such as therapist interaction, behavioural changes and increased activity.
Improvement could therefore result from factors other than challenging irrational beliefs.
Depression may also have biological or social causes.
AQA's 2023 mark scheme explicitly accepts REBT/CBT as a practical application of the ABC model, while also recognising alternative explanations and the problem of establishing causality.
Example answer
CBT provides support for Ellis because it aims to identify and challenge irrational beliefs. If depressive symptoms improve after these beliefs become more rational, this is consistent with Ellis's claim that irrational thinking contributes to depression. However, this does not prove that irrational beliefs originally caused the depression. CBT contains other potentially helpful elements, and biological or social factors may also contribute to depression, so treatment success is not conclusive evidence for Ellis's explanation.
Question 10
Discuss Ellis’s cognitive explanation of depression. In your answer, compare Ellis’s explanation with Beck’s explanation.
[16 marks]
Comments