Perceived, Desired, and Discrepant Control: Initial Cross-Sectional Evidence for a Metacognitive Calibration Framework for Depression Risk

Abstract Background Control beliefs are central to depressive symptomatology, yet research has primarily examined perceived and desired control either in isolation or without consideration of how individuals perceive their degree of alignment. The present study tested a triadic calibration framework, proposing that depression risk is shaped not only by perceived and desired control, but also by their metacognitive alignment, termed control discrepancy. Method A community sample of 942 adults ( M age = 36.7, SD = 17.6; 56.9% women) completed measures of perceived control, desired control, control discrepancy, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Hierarchical logistic regressions tested interactive nonlinear relationships, followed by cross-validation and sensitivity analyses (i.e., bootstrapped, Firth’s penalized-likelihood, and Bayesian estimation). Results We found that perceived control, desired control, and control discrepancy were jointly associated with heightened depression risk. Under deficient control, low perceived control paired with high desired control was associated with greater depression risk, whereas high perceived control was associated with lower depression risk across levels of desired control. Contrastingly, under surplus control, the relationship between desired control and depression risk was attenuated, and the attenuating association of perceived control on the relationship between desired control and depression risk weakened. Conclusions These findings may extend cognitive and metacognitive theories of depression by highlighting the importance of considering both first-order and second-order control beliefs in depressogenic outcomes.