Abstract
Depressive disorders are typically characterized as a malfunction of neurotransmission or brain circuitry underlying mood, pleasure and reward, or executive function. However, there is no consensus for the neuropathology underlying depressive disorders and current diagnostic criteria continue to allow for multiple etiological pathways.
A growing body of research suggests that evolutionary theory can be used as a tool to explain the ambiguous etiology and differential efficacy of treatments for depression. In the evolutionary perspective, depressive symptoms may in fact be adaptations performing an evolved function.
Several adaptationist hypotheses (evolutionary hypotheses that propose a function to the condition) have been devised to explain the origin, persistence, and etiology of depression. One leading hypothesis that has a great deal of indirect support is the analytical rumination hypothesis (ARH).
Under the ARH, many depressions are the result of an ancient defense mechanism designed by natural selection to promote analytical thinking in response to complex life stressors. This study tackles several still rarely explored aspects of Analytical Rumination Hypothesis for depression in clinical sample: intercorrelations of variables (depressive symptoms and skills for complex analytical problems solving).
The sample of 40 hospitalized patients with major diagnosed depressive phase of unipolar or recurrent depressive disorder was matched by gender, age, and education with a nonclinical sample of 40 individuals. Both groups underwent a battery of tests of complex cognition and their results were compared.
We predicted that depressed individuals will have better outcomes in near real-life complex cognition tests that healthy individuals. Results will be discussed along with a presentation of newly developed methodology model for studying the ARH phenomenon.