ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Depression as inferential rigidity: a meta-abductive account.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Depression is a highly prevalent mental disorder worldwide, and its cognitive rigidity-characterized by persistent negative beliefs resistant to countervailing evidence-remains a critical puzzle in philosophical psychiatry and clinical psychology. Existing theories of abductive reasoning have struggled to explain why similar adversities lead to rigid negative cognition in some individuals but adaptive coping in others. Methods: Drawing on a hierarchical reconstruction of Peircean abduction, this study develops a three-layer model of depressive inferential pathology. The theoretical framework integrates insights from embodied cognition, existential phenomenology, and epistemic consequentialism to analyze the formal structure of depressive reasoning. Results: The model identifies three interlocking inferential failures: (1) First-order pathology: Fixation of negatively self-referential abductive explanations, narrowing explanatory space; (2) Core pathology: Failure of meta-abduction, eliminating reflective revision of explanatory practices and cognitive adaptability; (3) Inferential extension: Rigid abductive conclusions are treated as absolute premises for destructive deductive reasoning, generating self-negating conclusions and closed ruminative loops. This model unifies clinical phenomena such as rumination and cognitive distortion, and clarifies the transition from situational responses to chronic pathology. Discussion: The findings suggest that depressive cognitive rigidity stems not from negative belief content alone, but from structural defects in reasoning. Effective intervention should focus on restoring meta-abductive capacity-treating one's own explanatory practices as revisable-complementing traditional approaches that target belief correction. This framework bridges philosophical psychiatry and clinical theory, offering a unified account of depression's cognitive persistence and resistance to intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.